We are of course protected 24 hours a day by the Customs and Border Patrol here in Point Roberts. But we are also protected by the Whatcom County Sheriff in the person of a couple of deputy sheriffs. They used to live at the Sheriff's Station on South Beach Road. There were two weary-looking, pre-fab kind of houses, nicely surrounded by a 6/7-foot wire fence. Well, nicely if you like the idea of being fenced in. With a big sign saying there is No Trespassing or No Unauthorized Entrance. (I can't remember at the moment what the sign says, but it has a forbidding quality to it.)
It looked sort of prison-like, I'm sorry to say, since it was actually the home of two deputies and their families. Then, about 3 or 4 years ago, the deputies and their families moved out. The word on the street was that the houses were rodent-infested, or mold-infested, or just not nice for human habitation. The deputies and their families then took up residence in rental properties and you would see their official cars parked at their little cottages here on the Point. And the Sheriff's Station lay vacant.
I follow this a bit because I live near the Sheriff's Station and I used to be able to tell people how to get to my house by using it as a landmark. But since the deputies moved out, newer residents to the Point seem less likely to know either that there is a Sheriff's Station or where it is.
Then, two or three months ago, much activity was suddenly manifest at the Sheriff's Station. The old and infested pre-fabs disappeared over a week and then, in a bit, new pre-fabs appeared. And much construction of additional amenities, including decks on the two houses, was undertaken. And then a couple of weeks ago, I saw a moving van drive into the forbidden area. And now, there are people there.
Not only people, presumably Deputy Sheriffs and their families, but dogs. Several dogs, perhaps as many as three dogs. Black dogs, of about the size of German Shepherds. They could be short-haired German pointers, although I don't remember that they are ever solid black. What they really are are barkers. Insistent barkers. They are committed to protecting the Deputies and the Deputies' families from any attacks from people walking by and especially from any attacks that arise from people walking by with some other dog on a leash. Those Deputy Dogs, they bark and bark and bark.
Unfortunately, on a sunny, summer Saturday or Sunday, somebody walks down South Beach with a dog on a leash about every twenty minutes. So we are treated to the sound of the Deputies and their families being provided with all this dog protection quite steadily. All this protection AND a 6/7-foot wire fence that completely encloses the compound? And a 24-hour CPB with cameras and radiation detection and all? We might well ask, as a 7-year-old grandchild once wisely asked, "Why do the Sheriff's Deputies need so much protection?.
Showing posts with label whatcom county. Show all posts
Showing posts with label whatcom county. Show all posts
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Way Down Below..Farther Even than the Carpet
Today, Ed and I spent the better part of the afternoon in Whatcom County's class on 'How To Inspect Your Own Septic System.' After all the brouhaha in late 2009 about everyone having to lay out $200-$300 to have a 'professional inspection,' the County revised the law to permit anyone who took the County's class in inspections to do the inspection on his/her own septic system. We had already had our septic system inspected, but the law requires that it be inspected regularly (every 1 or every 3 years, depending upon the kind of system it is). So, having taken the class, we could do it ourselves next time.
I know that because I took the class. But, frankly, I wouldn't, at least not yet, trust me to inspect our septic system. First of all, you have to be able to take the lid off and it's way too heavy for me to move, so I am stymied at the very first step.
The class, held here in Point Roberts, attracted 60-65 folks, most of them guys, but there were at least a dozen women in the room, as well, most of them of the elderly (like me) class. I don't know whether any of those other ladies could lift their lids, either. But it wasn't just the first step that was the problem. The guy from the County who was explaining to us how to do this work was really very good, but he really didn't expect to be dealing with people like me, people who don't know the first thing about the subject, including the language that one uses to talk about it. For example, there was much talk of baffles. I could never quite get it into my mind what he was talking about. At one point he actually showed me a baffle, pulling it out of a piece of PVC pipe (I do know what PVC pipe is; there's that). But then, the next time he referred to the baffle and how it needed to be dealt with, I had forgotten about the thing he pulled out of the pipe and that it was called a baffle and thus had no idea what he was talking about. This was definitely not his fault. But the class effectively had pre-requisites, classes I had not taken.
It just got worse for me. By the end of the second hour, when he was warning us about 'ponding' in the drain field, I was not sure whether ponding meant 'ponds of water,' or whether it had some special technical meaning that was obscure to me. Thus, as Ed learned how to do it, I ended up knowing less than I knew at the beginning. At least I suspect that at the beginning, I would have been pretty confident that ponding meant water gathering in small ponds.
Now, Ed knows how to do it and we are both certified by having been at the class. Ed, however, assures me that he will walk me through it with our system so that I will see what it is the instructions were talking about and then my certification will have more content. That would be good. I learn that kind of thing better if I'm seeing the real practice. Otherwise, I'm just likely to hear the word 'baffle' and immediately think of myself as baffled.
I know that because I took the class. But, frankly, I wouldn't, at least not yet, trust me to inspect our septic system. First of all, you have to be able to take the lid off and it's way too heavy for me to move, so I am stymied at the very first step.
The class, held here in Point Roberts, attracted 60-65 folks, most of them guys, but there were at least a dozen women in the room, as well, most of them of the elderly (like me) class. I don't know whether any of those other ladies could lift their lids, either. But it wasn't just the first step that was the problem. The guy from the County who was explaining to us how to do this work was really very good, but he really didn't expect to be dealing with people like me, people who don't know the first thing about the subject, including the language that one uses to talk about it. For example, there was much talk of baffles. I could never quite get it into my mind what he was talking about. At one point he actually showed me a baffle, pulling it out of a piece of PVC pipe (I do know what PVC pipe is; there's that). But then, the next time he referred to the baffle and how it needed to be dealt with, I had forgotten about the thing he pulled out of the pipe and that it was called a baffle and thus had no idea what he was talking about. This was definitely not his fault. But the class effectively had pre-requisites, classes I had not taken.
It just got worse for me. By the end of the second hour, when he was warning us about 'ponding' in the drain field, I was not sure whether ponding meant 'ponds of water,' or whether it had some special technical meaning that was obscure to me. Thus, as Ed learned how to do it, I ended up knowing less than I knew at the beginning. At least I suspect that at the beginning, I would have been pretty confident that ponding meant water gathering in small ponds.
Now, Ed knows how to do it and we are both certified by having been at the class. Ed, however, assures me that he will walk me through it with our system so that I will see what it is the instructions were talking about and then my certification will have more content. That would be good. I learn that kind of thing better if I'm seeing the real practice. Otherwise, I'm just likely to hear the word 'baffle' and immediately think of myself as baffled.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
No More Confusing the Readers
Chaircreature Reber of the Community Advisory Committee has written me again, this time with his concerns that I am confusing my 'thousands of readers' with my suggestions that the County Supply Attic has no Border Guards that can be sent to lengthen the Nexus lane hours here at Point Roberts and no llamas that can be distributed to needy residents and no docks that can be installed at Lighthouse Park. (Although it doesn't have those things, in fact.)
So, let the confusion cease. First of all, let's not be confused about my thousands of readers. Hundreds, yes; thousands, no. And even the hundreds have shown no evidence of being any more confused than everybody else I meet, so I'd like to assert that there is at least no evidence of confusion.
But let the facts stand as Reber reports them. There is some actual money in a Whatcom County account in the amount of $370,000 but it is not the County that won't let us use those dollars for border guard salaries or llamas or docks. It is the State. Those moneys are only for roads, a word whose meaning can apparently be broadened to include walking trails and bicycle paths and, perhaps, public transit, as in the return of the Blue Heron Van. Definitely no llamas. End of subject.
Now, my personal knowledge of lawyers (which is actually pretty extensive, having even taught once in a law school) leads me to believe that the State has a pretty second-rate bunch of lawyer/statute interpreters if they can't squeeze more meaning out of 'roads' than that. But, I do not know that for a fact, so do not be getting yourself confused here.
And, if there are to be no border guards, no llamas, and no docks....well, what else do we need? Bicycles is the answer to that question. We need bicycles in large numbers lying about on the sides of the road so that anyone who wants to ride a bicycle someplace can pick one up from the side of the road (instead of from some resident's yard) and then drop it off at the side of some other road when he/she is done riding. And it could also include some large 3-wheeled adult tricycle-like vehicles for those who have reached the age where balance issues might suggest that a 2-wheeled vehicle was not such a good idea.
And if that went well, we could have kayaks lying around at the beach for people to take rides in. This, I claim, would be at least as legitimate a use as the Blue Heron Van (which is said perhaps to be a viable option) under the heading of 'Public Transportation.'
Next year, we'll talk again about the llamas. You can be preparing for it by reading this.
If you wish to bring these matters up to the Community Advisory Committee, you are encouraged to do so by responding to their survey which is included in the All Point Bulletin E-News. Llamas...remember it has two l's.
So, let the confusion cease. First of all, let's not be confused about my thousands of readers. Hundreds, yes; thousands, no. And even the hundreds have shown no evidence of being any more confused than everybody else I meet, so I'd like to assert that there is at least no evidence of confusion.
But let the facts stand as Reber reports them. There is some actual money in a Whatcom County account in the amount of $370,000 but it is not the County that won't let us use those dollars for border guard salaries or llamas or docks. It is the State. Those moneys are only for roads, a word whose meaning can apparently be broadened to include walking trails and bicycle paths and, perhaps, public transit, as in the return of the Blue Heron Van. Definitely no llamas. End of subject.
Now, my personal knowledge of lawyers (which is actually pretty extensive, having even taught once in a law school) leads me to believe that the State has a pretty second-rate bunch of lawyer/statute interpreters if they can't squeeze more meaning out of 'roads' than that. But, I do not know that for a fact, so do not be getting yourself confused here.
And, if there are to be no border guards, no llamas, and no docks....well, what else do we need? Bicycles is the answer to that question. We need bicycles in large numbers lying about on the sides of the road so that anyone who wants to ride a bicycle someplace can pick one up from the side of the road (instead of from some resident's yard) and then drop it off at the side of some other road when he/she is done riding. And it could also include some large 3-wheeled adult tricycle-like vehicles for those who have reached the age where balance issues might suggest that a 2-wheeled vehicle was not such a good idea.
And if that went well, we could have kayaks lying around at the beach for people to take rides in. This, I claim, would be at least as legitimate a use as the Blue Heron Van (which is said perhaps to be a viable option) under the heading of 'Public Transportation.'
Next year, we'll talk again about the llamas. You can be preparing for it by reading this.
If you wish to bring these matters up to the Community Advisory Committee, you are encouraged to do so by responding to their survey which is included in the All Point Bulletin E-News. Llamas...remember it has two l's.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Advising the Advisers
Chaircreature Reber has responded to my suggestion that we use the $370,000 to provide funding for additional Nexus lane hours by saying it is a funny joke, but then goes on to say that surely I understand that the border is controlled by the Federal Government. Well, shucks, yes, Sherlock. I did know that. But I assumed that Whatcom County was collecting the penny/gallon tax on gasoline in U.S. dollars, rather than in drachmas (which Greece may be needing again) or, in chickens as in the infamous Lowden barter plan (that's one unplucked chicken/dollar). I did consider the problem in converting U.S. dollars into Canadian ones to extend the Canadian Nexus Lane hours, but thought that there was probably enough currency exchange going on in Point Roberts that that, too, could be managed.
But, apparently not. Whatcom County will build us some little walking paths or some little biking distances. And we can be happy with having had our opinion sought.
It occurs to me, of course, that, although I was not making a joke, I did make a fatal error. Like those who are under the misimpression that the Social Security Tax is being kept in a literal lockbox to be spent on securing the social, I foolishly thought that what we were talking about were actual dollars that were down there in the possession of the County. Now, I have no real knowledge here, but I'm guessing or inferring that what happens is something like this: Whatcom County gets the pennies per gallon and puts it in its accounting credits and then it spends it for whatever things and services that Whatcom County buys, and puts the cost of that spending in its accounting debits. And so, there no longer is any money to spend. That's all done. The money came in; the money got spent.
What Point Roberts gets to do is to go poke around in the Whatcom County attic where the County people keep all their office and other county supplies that haven't yet been used or aren't currently being use. And Point Roberts can then ask for $370,000 worth of that stuff. Could be street signs, could be walk-making labor, could be an old snow plow. But it couldn't be longer Nexus lane hours because Whatcom County didn't buy any of those last year.
Also, we can't use the money to buy a llama for all the Point residents who want one because llama ownership isn't related to transit, and even if it were, the County Attic is devoid of llamas for us to choose from. Too bad. Either longer Nexus hours or a llama per household is what we need, of course. But the joke is on us!
But, apparently not. Whatcom County will build us some little walking paths or some little biking distances. And we can be happy with having had our opinion sought.
It occurs to me, of course, that, although I was not making a joke, I did make a fatal error. Like those who are under the misimpression that the Social Security Tax is being kept in a literal lockbox to be spent on securing the social, I foolishly thought that what we were talking about were actual dollars that were down there in the possession of the County. Now, I have no real knowledge here, but I'm guessing or inferring that what happens is something like this: Whatcom County gets the pennies per gallon and puts it in its accounting credits and then it spends it for whatever things and services that Whatcom County buys, and puts the cost of that spending in its accounting debits. And so, there no longer is any money to spend. That's all done. The money came in; the money got spent.
What Point Roberts gets to do is to go poke around in the Whatcom County attic where the County people keep all their office and other county supplies that haven't yet been used or aren't currently being use. And Point Roberts can then ask for $370,000 worth of that stuff. Could be street signs, could be walk-making labor, could be an old snow plow. But it couldn't be longer Nexus lane hours because Whatcom County didn't buy any of those last year.
Also, we can't use the money to buy a llama for all the Point residents who want one because llama ownership isn't related to transit, and even if it were, the County Attic is devoid of llamas for us to choose from. Too bad. Either longer Nexus hours or a llama per household is what we need, of course. But the joke is on us!
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
What Do We Really Need?
This spring, the County has named a Point Roberts Community Advisory Committee, presumably on the off chance that there could be conversation on difficult issues prior to the high level screaming point from the Point. The five people are to be meeting monthly in open meetings and their first meeting was this month but I, alas, was not here that evening.
However, the chairman of the group has sent us round some information and a request. What it amounts to is this: Sometime ago, the County put in a penny a gallon tax on gasoline which was to be used by the local community. Now, in that case, that 'local community' is us here in Point Roberts. So the first thing the Advisory folks are doing is trying to figure out what we might use that money for. At the moment, thanks to all those Canadians who come down here to buy cheaper gas, the fund for P.R. holds about $370,000. That's an economic development plan all in itself, surely.
The kicker, however---and there is always a kicker when dealing with government (not a criticism, just a recognition of inevitability)--is that the use of the money is tethered to transit. Specifically,
NOTE: These funds can only be used for “Roads and Transportation.” They cannot be used for docks or piers, lighthouses or whale watching platforms. State law limits them to “investment in new or existing highways of significance, public transportation, and other transportation projects and programs….”
In a place this small, it's a little hard to imagine too many transportation needs that involve roads. I mean, we already have roads. Of course there are things like wider shoulders for bike lanes or off road trails. Unfortunately, we are also cautioned about the costs of such things: Off-road paths: $2,000,000 per mile
However, the chairman of the group has sent us round some information and a request. What it amounts to is this: Sometime ago, the County put in a penny a gallon tax on gasoline which was to be used by the local community. Now, in that case, that 'local community' is us here in Point Roberts. So the first thing the Advisory folks are doing is trying to figure out what we might use that money for. At the moment, thanks to all those Canadians who come down here to buy cheaper gas, the fund for P.R. holds about $370,000. That's an economic development plan all in itself, surely.
The kicker, however---and there is always a kicker when dealing with government (not a criticism, just a recognition of inevitability)--is that the use of the money is tethered to transit. Specifically,
NOTE: These funds can only be used for “Roads and Transportation.” They cannot be used for docks or piers, lighthouses or whale watching platforms. State law limits them to “investment in new or existing highways of significance, public transportation, and other transportation projects and programs….”
In a place this small, it's a little hard to imagine too many transportation needs that involve roads. I mean, we already have roads. Of course there are things like wider shoulders for bike lanes or off road trails. Unfortunately, we are also cautioned about the costs of such things: Off-road paths: $2,000,000 per mile
Widening road shoulders: $500,000 per mile
Okay, then, we could get a short path to somewhere or a few blocks of widened shoulder and then next year we could turn it into a bike path. Oh, well.
My first thought was that there should be a transit lottery in which everyone with a permanent P.R. residence AND a car registered here would be entitled to enter the daily lottery for $1,000 worth of gasoline. That would connect it to transportation because, at least in theory, those 365 car owners could drive more than they might otherwise do. And people really seem to like lotteries. And even I might like a lottery if I didn't have to pay for a ticket and there was some reasonable chance of winning something. It seems to me as if it might easily be a 1 in 3 chances of winning $1,000 worth of gasoline in any given year. And, at a thousand dollars a day, we could use up all $370K during one year.
On the other hand, the powers might not think that was really improving roads and transportation.
But then, here's the real idea. What would improve transportation in Point Roberts? For people who are in Point Roberts and particularly those who live here? The answer to that, really, is simple: longer Nexus lane hours, both coming and going. Almost everyone who lives here has a Nexus card. So, just how many border guard salaries could we pay with our $370,000? I don't know, but surely including benefits, they don't get more than $100,000 each? (What do I know about salaries? Nothing. No one's paid me one in 15 years.) If so, that's almost four additional guards. Surely with three additional FTE salaries, both the Canadians and U.S. people could manage one extra shift for the Nexus lane each day. Opening it at 8 am, say, and keeping it open until 10 pm or later.
Somebody else can work out the money and staffing and all that. But surely there's nothing that would improve transportation in Point Roberts more than this. Take it away, Chairman Reber. The ball's in your court.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Howl!
UPDATED BELOW
Coyotes very active today up here in the center parts of Point Roberts. I don’t hear them all that often, and usually it is in the summertime. But today, there have been repeated periods of call and response. Omens of some kind, doubtless, but we’ve lost the ability to know what they’re trying to tell us.
And reasonably warm today, too. Maybe that’s what they’re howling about. The bushes are showing alarming signs of swelling buds. ‘Wait,’ I want to tell them, ‘You’ve got all of January still to get through.’ But maybe they, like the coyotes, know something we don’t. We did see, coming through Vancouver a few days ago a row of four trees in bloom--pink flowers--in front of the condos down on English Bay, right near the entrance to the Burrard St. Bridge. And there are daffodils showing their leaf tips over at the Community Center, here in Point Roberts. Well, we’ll see.
Other things we are seeing about:
1. According to the business news, the FDIC (the part of the federal government that is in charge of bank closings, among other things) is said to be getting serious with Sterling Financial Corp., the parent company of Sterling Savings Bank. Sterling is said to have less than two months to get a plan together to get its business, as it were, back on track. So we’ll be hearing more about that as February comes to a close. In the meantime, two or three more legal firms have announced that they’re trolling for participants in a class action suit against the company. The FDIC has been on a vacation as far as closing banks is concerned, but they’ll be back in that business next week. It is also reported that they’re hiring a lot of new, but temporary, workers to help them in that sad activity.
2. The WUTC held its public hearing on Pt. Roberts' trash issues on the 29th, although earlier in the day than originally scheduled. I suppose it occurred to them that it wasn’t difficult enough for people from Point Roberts to get down to Olympia for this hearing to find out what they think, so they re-scheduled it to 9:300 a.m. A veritable red-eye trip.
In any case, they had the hearing, and attendance appeared minimal, at least as far as the ‘Sign-In Sheet’ revealed. At the end of whatever happened, the Commission requested the staff to get some information for them (not a moment too soon, I’d say) as to Whatcom County’s actual trash/recycling plan, the Commission’s staff’s analysis of that plan, the State of Washington’s views on the status of Freedom 2000, and the (I assume) federal Dept. of Transportation’s view on the status of Freedom 2000 with respect to licensure (12/31, 'notice of bench requests' at the link).
And within less than 48 hours, the state responded ('response' 12/31, at the link; now there’s a bureaucracy that’s performing at top speed; kudos to them) by announcing that they had dissolved the company (i.e., Freedom 2000) on December 1, 2009, because of the company’s failure to complete various paperwork required of such companies in order to be recognized by the state. That would be 28 days BEFORE the public hearing on whether Freedom 2000, the company, should be awarded the opportunity to collect our trash and recycling.
A friend asks, ‘So, where does that leave us now?’ Good question. Freedom 2000 is no longer a company, apparently, and Points Recycling and Refuse, the Wilkowsky contestant, is offering to do less than the County says is to be done. I would think that figuring this out would take, oh, maybe another 30 days? Stay in touch. Or maybe just howl.
Update: On January 4, Freedom 2000 filed reinstatement papers, including fees, etc. So, presumably it's back in business. Link here.
Coyotes very active today up here in the center parts of Point Roberts. I don’t hear them all that often, and usually it is in the summertime. But today, there have been repeated periods of call and response. Omens of some kind, doubtless, but we’ve lost the ability to know what they’re trying to tell us.
And reasonably warm today, too. Maybe that’s what they’re howling about. The bushes are showing alarming signs of swelling buds. ‘Wait,’ I want to tell them, ‘You’ve got all of January still to get through.’ But maybe they, like the coyotes, know something we don’t. We did see, coming through Vancouver a few days ago a row of four trees in bloom--pink flowers--in front of the condos down on English Bay, right near the entrance to the Burrard St. Bridge. And there are daffodils showing their leaf tips over at the Community Center, here in Point Roberts. Well, we’ll see.
Other things we are seeing about:
1. According to the business news, the FDIC (the part of the federal government that is in charge of bank closings, among other things) is said to be getting serious with Sterling Financial Corp., the parent company of Sterling Savings Bank. Sterling is said to have less than two months to get a plan together to get its business, as it were, back on track. So we’ll be hearing more about that as February comes to a close. In the meantime, two or three more legal firms have announced that they’re trolling for participants in a class action suit against the company. The FDIC has been on a vacation as far as closing banks is concerned, but they’ll be back in that business next week. It is also reported that they’re hiring a lot of new, but temporary, workers to help them in that sad activity.
2. The WUTC held its public hearing on Pt. Roberts' trash issues on the 29th, although earlier in the day than originally scheduled. I suppose it occurred to them that it wasn’t difficult enough for people from Point Roberts to get down to Olympia for this hearing to find out what they think, so they re-scheduled it to 9:
In any case, they had the hearing, and attendance appeared minimal, at least as far as the ‘Sign-In Sheet’ revealed. At the end of whatever happened, the Commission requested the staff to get some information for them (not a moment too soon, I’d say) as to Whatcom County’s actual trash/recycling plan, the Commission’s staff’s analysis of that plan, the State of Washington’s views on the status of Freedom 2000, and the (I assume) federal Dept. of Transportation’s view on the status of Freedom 2000 with respect to licensure (12/31, 'notice of bench requests' at the link).
And within less than 48 hours, the state responded ('response' 12/31, at the link; now there’s a bureaucracy that’s performing at top speed; kudos to them) by announcing that they had dissolved the company (i.e., Freedom 2000) on December 1, 2009, because of the company’s failure to complete various paperwork required of such companies in order to be recognized by the state. That would be 28 days BEFORE the public hearing on whether Freedom 2000, the company, should be awarded the opportunity to collect our trash and recycling.
A friend asks, ‘So, where does that leave us now?’ Good question. Freedom 2000 is no longer a company, apparently, and Points Recycling and Refuse, the Wilkowsky contestant, is offering to do less than the County says is to be done. I would think that figuring this out would take, oh, maybe another 30 days? Stay in touch. Or maybe just howl.
Update: On January 4, Freedom 2000 filed reinstatement papers, including fees, etc. So, presumably it's back in business. Link here.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Septic System Meeting, Part II
The back story to the septic inspection program is this. The State put forth a requirement that septic systems needed to be inspected annually. They didn’t say how those inspections were to be done. They want them done to improve/protect water quality in Puget Sound. The counties were each responsible for implementing this requirement. In Whatcom County, there was a division on the Council as to whether inspections should be done professionally or by homeowners themselves. Brenner (who was at the meeting Monday night) favored the homeowners being allowed to do it themselves; Weimer (also at the meeting) thought that at least the initial inspection should be done by professionals. We know who won.
There are 30,000 septic systems in Whatcom County but, according to Weimer, they don’t know where 10,000 of them are. I think what he meant by that is that they don’t know anything about the kind of septic system that is in place in 10,000 property parcels. Having a professional do the first inspection, he said, would provide the County with a data base. The reason they don’t know anything about these 10K is that until sometime in the 60’s (don’t have a note on the exact date, so I’m working from memory), you didn’t need a septic system permit. Whatever system was put in prior to that time was legal, but there were no standards. You’d could have been using a ’36 Ford for a tank. Then, sometime later (1975? 1976?), Bellingham had a flood and a lot of records were lost, including existing records about septic systems. So those two would presumably account for their not knowing about 10,000 septic systems.
The obvious question is why are we choosing between professional inspections and homeowner inspections? Why aren’t we using county inspectors, in the same way that we have county building inspectors? The short answer is ‘no money.’ And the longer answer—reading between the lines of their comments somewhat--is that, in order to get enough money, you’d have to raise taxes, and they’re not going to do that because, well you know why they’re not going to raise taxes. So this is yet another example of services that would probably be better done by government (because there is less conflict of interest) but have been privatized because some elected officials prefer privatization and because some elected officials are unwilling officially to suggest raising taxes. And they don’t want to do it because they fear they’ll be punished by the electorate at election time. And much of the electorate wants services but doesn’t want to pay for them; but much of that portion of the electorate being required to have this service didn’t actually initiate any request for the service. It’s an understandably messy political problem in a tight budget period.
The standards for the inspections appear to be somewhat unclear, leading to uneven outcomes. The initial failure rate of the inspection regimen in Whatcom County is either 3-4% (Brenner’s figure) or 4-5% (Weimer’s figure). Both said they got their numbers from the Health Dept. (It did not appear to me that the Council and the Health Department (which operates under Kremens) were happily working together on this problem.) In Kitsap County, by contrast, the initial failure rate is 1%. There might be some reason for that, but nobody had one on offer. The implication was that different counties and different inspectors might well be using somewhat different standards. For example, according to Brenner, any system that is not failing is acceptable, even if it requires maintenance; but some people at the meeting had been told that some systems (wooden boxes commonly used historically) are on the face of it unacceptable and therefore considered to be failing merely by existing. That is, that they didn’t even need to be inspected beyond that fact that they are a currently unacceptable system.
The most irritating (for me) part of the discussion was Weimer’s insistence on describing private inspectors who are in the building trades--specifically in the installation and repair of septic systems—as having a ‘potential conflict of interest.’ Of course they have a clear and present conflict of interest. They may be able to steer a careful path around that conflict, but neither the public nor the county has any way of knowing whether they are doing so. The inspection system appears to have no transparency as far as I could determine. And the people from Point Roberts at the meeting were outspoken about their fears of conflict of interest: both under-inspecting for friends and relatives and over-inspecting in order to generate more business for the inspectors themselves and their colleagues.
Bottom line: There’s a lot of money at stake in these 30,000 inspections, all of which are to take place within a year. Replacing tanks was discussed at some length because new tanks cost about $1500, but Whatcom County charges $950 for a permit to install a new tank. Maybe in the situation where the County is requiring a new tank, that permit fee ought to be eliminated? But the County needs money, so I doubt if that is going to happen. (If 4% of systems are failing and need new tanks, that’s $1.25 million in permit money to the County, and almost $2 million to the septic tank replacement business.) The inspectors are getting about $200-$250 per inspection, of which $35 goes to the County (but which we would never refer to as a tax). So the County nets $1 million plus on the permits, and the inspectors net $5.7 million on the inspections. And then you have to include also all the additional costs rising from the inspections, money going to those building trades. In an initial study, the County found that 20% of the systems inspected required maintenance work of some kind. The millions keep rolling by.
Final info: the classes so that homeowners can, if they choose, do their own inspections after the first inspection, have been slow to start. Currently, the only classes are for above ground systems (pump? Pressure mound? I know little about the different kinds). Eventually there will be classes for the gravity systems, which continue to be acceptable systems, per se. Classes will probably be offered in Point Roberts itself. And if you do not long to do your own inspections, you can hire certified inspectors. And the Health Dept. is said to be doing random inspections on the inspectors’ inspections. But who will be inspecting the Health Department’s inspectors’ inspections of the certified inspectors’ inspections? We’ll need another meeting to get that nailed down.
There are 30,000 septic systems in Whatcom County but, according to Weimer, they don’t know where 10,000 of them are. I think what he meant by that is that they don’t know anything about the kind of septic system that is in place in 10,000 property parcels. Having a professional do the first inspection, he said, would provide the County with a data base. The reason they don’t know anything about these 10K is that until sometime in the 60’s (don’t have a note on the exact date, so I’m working from memory), you didn’t need a septic system permit. Whatever system was put in prior to that time was legal, but there were no standards. You’d could have been using a ’36 Ford for a tank. Then, sometime later (1975? 1976?), Bellingham had a flood and a lot of records were lost, including existing records about septic systems. So those two would presumably account for their not knowing about 10,000 septic systems.
The obvious question is why are we choosing between professional inspections and homeowner inspections? Why aren’t we using county inspectors, in the same way that we have county building inspectors? The short answer is ‘no money.’ And the longer answer—reading between the lines of their comments somewhat--is that, in order to get enough money, you’d have to raise taxes, and they’re not going to do that because, well you know why they’re not going to raise taxes. So this is yet another example of services that would probably be better done by government (because there is less conflict of interest) but have been privatized because some elected officials prefer privatization and because some elected officials are unwilling officially to suggest raising taxes. And they don’t want to do it because they fear they’ll be punished by the electorate at election time. And much of the electorate wants services but doesn’t want to pay for them; but much of that portion of the electorate being required to have this service didn’t actually initiate any request for the service. It’s an understandably messy political problem in a tight budget period.
The standards for the inspections appear to be somewhat unclear, leading to uneven outcomes. The initial failure rate of the inspection regimen in Whatcom County is either 3-4% (Brenner’s figure) or 4-5% (Weimer’s figure). Both said they got their numbers from the Health Dept. (It did not appear to me that the Council and the Health Department (which operates under Kremens) were happily working together on this problem.) In Kitsap County, by contrast, the initial failure rate is 1%. There might be some reason for that, but nobody had one on offer. The implication was that different counties and different inspectors might well be using somewhat different standards. For example, according to Brenner, any system that is not failing is acceptable, even if it requires maintenance; but some people at the meeting had been told that some systems (wooden boxes commonly used historically) are on the face of it unacceptable and therefore considered to be failing merely by existing. That is, that they didn’t even need to be inspected beyond that fact that they are a currently unacceptable system.
The most irritating (for me) part of the discussion was Weimer’s insistence on describing private inspectors who are in the building trades--specifically in the installation and repair of septic systems—as having a ‘potential conflict of interest.’ Of course they have a clear and present conflict of interest. They may be able to steer a careful path around that conflict, but neither the public nor the county has any way of knowing whether they are doing so. The inspection system appears to have no transparency as far as I could determine. And the people from Point Roberts at the meeting were outspoken about their fears of conflict of interest: both under-inspecting for friends and relatives and over-inspecting in order to generate more business for the inspectors themselves and their colleagues.
Bottom line: There’s a lot of money at stake in these 30,000 inspections, all of which are to take place within a year. Replacing tanks was discussed at some length because new tanks cost about $1500, but Whatcom County charges $950 for a permit to install a new tank. Maybe in the situation where the County is requiring a new tank, that permit fee ought to be eliminated? But the County needs money, so I doubt if that is going to happen. (If 4% of systems are failing and need new tanks, that’s $1.25 million in permit money to the County, and almost $2 million to the septic tank replacement business.) The inspectors are getting about $200-$250 per inspection, of which $35 goes to the County (but which we would never refer to as a tax). So the County nets $1 million plus on the permits, and the inspectors net $5.7 million on the inspections. And then you have to include also all the additional costs rising from the inspections, money going to those building trades. In an initial study, the County found that 20% of the systems inspected required maintenance work of some kind. The millions keep rolling by.
Final info: the classes so that homeowners can, if they choose, do their own inspections after the first inspection, have been slow to start. Currently, the only classes are for above ground systems (pump? Pressure mound? I know little about the different kinds). Eventually there will be classes for the gravity systems, which continue to be acceptable systems, per se. Classes will probably be offered in Point Roberts itself. And if you do not long to do your own inspections, you can hire certified inspectors. And the Health Dept. is said to be doing random inspections on the inspectors’ inspections. But who will be inspecting the Health Department’s inspectors’ inspections of the certified inspectors’ inspections? We’ll need another meeting to get that nailed down.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Community Meet-Up
Tonight was the community meeting with two members of the County Council wherein we were to learn more about the septic inspection system that has been inaugurated for us by the County and the State. Alas, everything was not illuminated, although much was described. The Council Members described what they had done and the community members described how they thought and felt about the implementation of the Council's work. There was some meeting of the minds. At least it did not become a libertarian shout fest in which people expressed beliefs about how the County had no right to make them do anything, although there was one impassioned claim about the whole program being unconstitutional because it was a 'referendum tax' instead of an 'initiative tax.' About this, I will say no more.
Over a hundred people from Point Roberts showed up on a truly unpleasant weather evening: the rain was pouring down, the winds were blowing, and there are reports of bigger winds, bigger tides, and flooding by morning. So people might reasonably have had something else on their mind than showing up at this meeting. Lots of part-time residents were there, explaining their particular problems with this system. What was most notable, however, was that most everyone, and in fact perhaps actually everyone, agreed with the impetus for the system. That is, they did not disagree that research showed increasing coliform problems in shoreline waters and that human and agricultural sources both contribute to that problem. We need clean water. The issue was about how to get from here to there.
Unlike the Border Control meeting that was held last spring, the meeting (which lasted two full hours) did not end with a sense of hope that something had been heard that hadn't been heard before, and that, as a result, there was a distinct prospect of change. The border issues definitely improved subsequent to that meeting. But nothing is going to change as a result of this meeting, I think. Yes, there are many distinct problems with the implementation of the inspection system, but these problems are not a surprise to the Council members for the most part (although they did admit that they had not thought about houses occupied only on a part-time basis). But there you are: that's the system that the Council voted for, and that's how the system is being implemented by the Health Department, which is not a department that the Council controls. You got problems with that? Talk to Pete Kremens who is the County Executive.
The issue of conflict of interest captured most of the conversation. One suggestion that seemed to be accepted for immediate action was providing people with information about what an inspector should be doing when he comes to do an inspection. That information could be provided pretty quickly. If it's not at least in the All Points Bulletin's December issue, I'm going to be pretty disappointed. It was the one thing the Council members agreed could and should be done. And if they don't do it, they've lost their bona fides with me.
There is a proposed amendment to the inspection enforcement legislation coming before the Council at the end of January. It was introduced by Barbara Brenner (who was one of the two Council persons who drove the roads for us tonight--the other, Carl Weimer). The first hearings on that will be at the end of January. But nothing is going to change the problems that we already have before the deadline for inspections passes us by in early December.
There were lots of interesting details in the meeting, but I'll postpone that illustrative material until the next post, on Wednesday, since this is already long enough.
Over a hundred people from Point Roberts showed up on a truly unpleasant weather evening: the rain was pouring down, the winds were blowing, and there are reports of bigger winds, bigger tides, and flooding by morning. So people might reasonably have had something else on their mind than showing up at this meeting. Lots of part-time residents were there, explaining their particular problems with this system. What was most notable, however, was that most everyone, and in fact perhaps actually everyone, agreed with the impetus for the system. That is, they did not disagree that research showed increasing coliform problems in shoreline waters and that human and agricultural sources both contribute to that problem. We need clean water. The issue was about how to get from here to there.
Unlike the Border Control meeting that was held last spring, the meeting (which lasted two full hours) did not end with a sense of hope that something had been heard that hadn't been heard before, and that, as a result, there was a distinct prospect of change. The border issues definitely improved subsequent to that meeting. But nothing is going to change as a result of this meeting, I think. Yes, there are many distinct problems with the implementation of the inspection system, but these problems are not a surprise to the Council members for the most part (although they did admit that they had not thought about houses occupied only on a part-time basis). But there you are: that's the system that the Council voted for, and that's how the system is being implemented by the Health Department, which is not a department that the Council controls. You got problems with that? Talk to Pete Kremens who is the County Executive.
The issue of conflict of interest captured most of the conversation. One suggestion that seemed to be accepted for immediate action was providing people with information about what an inspector should be doing when he comes to do an inspection. That information could be provided pretty quickly. If it's not at least in the All Points Bulletin's December issue, I'm going to be pretty disappointed. It was the one thing the Council members agreed could and should be done. And if they don't do it, they've lost their bona fides with me.
There is a proposed amendment to the inspection enforcement legislation coming before the Council at the end of January. It was introduced by Barbara Brenner (who was one of the two Council persons who drove the roads for us tonight--the other, Carl Weimer). The first hearings on that will be at the end of January. But nothing is going to change the problems that we already have before the deadline for inspections passes us by in early December.
There were lots of interesting details in the meeting, but I'll postpone that illustrative material until the next post, on Wednesday, since this is already long enough.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Parks and Libraries Prevail
It’s been about a week since we voted and the two issues of considerable interest to Point Roberts have now been decided, although the totals are still unofficial. The Parks Board request for a levy was approved, but that vote also required that the turnout in this election be at least 40% of the turnout in the last general election and that of those voting, at least 60% had to approve the levy request. Given that the last general election was a presidential election, these requirements could have been hard to meet. Indeed, for the levy to pass, at least 278 people had to vote. In fact, only 303 people voted, just 31 more than were required. However, the ‘Yes’ vote was well over the 60% requirement—76+%. This levy involves an additional $.07/$1,000 assessed value.
The other issue was the ‘Rural Library Proposition No. 1.’ Fortunately, this measure required only a 50% approval rate. This applied to more than Point Roberts, so it was a much larger vote: a total of 34,581, and 51.41% voted to approve the additional rural library funding. It's good news for the library, and only slightly more than ten cents additional tax per $1,000 assessment. (Thus, a house assessed at $200,000 will pay an additional property tax of about $20.40 each year.) Encouraging news for our services.
Results for all the Whatcom County election results are available here.
The other issue was the ‘Rural Library Proposition No. 1.’ Fortunately, this measure required only a 50% approval rate. This applied to more than Point Roberts, so it was a much larger vote: a total of 34,581, and 51.41% voted to approve the additional rural library funding. It's good news for the library, and only slightly more than ten cents additional tax per $1,000 assessment. (Thus, a house assessed at $200,000 will pay an additional property tax of about $20.40 each year.) Encouraging news for our services.
Results for all the Whatcom County election results are available here.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Economic Development Plan #3,000
On the schedule today was a visit to the monthly Taxpayers’ Association (TA) here in Point Roberts. I don’t often go to their meetings because I think they must meet when I’m not here. But they met and I’m here. And there is news, of sorts.
When I got there, a tad late, one attendee was waxing—well, not rhapsodic, but perhaps the opposite of rhapsodic: frenentic?—on the topic of Whatcom County’s desire to kill us all by urging us to get H1N1 vaccinations, even though the County doesn’t have many doses with which to target us, and even though we are feeling deprived about not having them. Just the gentleman’s point, though: the County was encouraging us to have shots that would risk our lives, and he wished the Association to protest this County action. If anyone produces minutes of the meeting, I imagine the gentleman’s views will be accurately recorded, if not in full detail.
It is very hard, I find, to know quite what to do when people up here—and not just a few of them—wish to convey their somewhat unusual views at considerable length to others. You nod (that’s the yes-yes nod), and then you think about responding but decide ‘not a good idea’ very quickly, and then you begin to nod (as in the dropping off to sleep nod). The only honest response I could make would be so profoundly impolite that I could not probably make it. So there you are. You just put it in the minutes.
And then we talked about trash (that is, trash collection or more specifically no-trash-collection) a bit. Is there light at the end of the tunnel? ‘None whatsoever,’ was the reply of the TA Director most attuned to the topic. But we talked about it some more anyway. One of the things I like about the trash collection problem is that we are stuck with a problem which appears to be so profoundly unique and complex that it can never be solved. Everyone wants to solve it but no one is able to solve it; not even the people who appear, more or less, to have the power to solve it. Perhaps it is actually insoluable; perhaps there is no actual trash collection anywhere else in the world and that is why the problem is so hard. I seem to remember that we used to have it, but then I get things wrong in my memories now and then. Perhaps it is only a dream; perhaps we have never had and thus very probably never will have trash collection. First, let us focus on going to the moon, say, or requiring people to have their septic systems inspected.
And thus did we segue into the TA's final topic of the evening. Some time ago, the County, along with other counties in Puget Sound, I was told, passed uniform enabling legislation requiring that everyone in those counties with septic systems be required to have a septic system inspection from a certified inspector beginning this year. Presumably, they’ve spent the last year getting those inspectors certified. They’re employees in the private sector and the County did not establish fees for this service, so you pay what they charge which, according to the street, is in the vicinity of $200-$250, which is a little steep for a simple inspection.
Up here in Point Roberts, there are no sewers; there are only septic systems, so every house and business on the Point must have this inspection. In mid-October, we got a letter saying we had till early December to get the inspections done and if we didn’t do it by then, our moms were going to be very disappointed and our dads were going to be very angry, and so just get it done. It also sent us a list of local certified outfits: four of them in Point Roberts. Now, there are maybe 1800 water hook-ups (at least that’s the number I got from the Water Board in 2004, and more have been added since then). I assume if you have a water hookup, you are likely also to have a septic system. Which means that in about sixty days, 1800+ inspections are to be conducted by four companies/individuals (none of them employ even tens of inspectors, certainly). That's going to be a scheduling nightmare, I'd think. And if you figure an average charge of $200 (which is underestimating, from what I've heard), that looks to me like almost half a million dollars of new spending in Point Roberts and on Point Roberts businesses in only two months. Merry Christmas, indeed!
Now that’s an economic development plan if I ever heard of one. Although it’s a little narrowly focused, I’d think. It will have spillover, of course, because if systems fail, then systems must be repaired or replaced. Good economic times in 2010, as well. This, I’d think, is an issue with very long legs. We have not heard the end of this.
And if the letters to us from the County were the first act, in two weeks we are going to get the second act when a member of the County Council and a member of the County Counsel’s office come to explain this to us in one of those big community meetings. Monday, November 16, 7 pm, Community Center. After that event, everything will be illuminated. If I were a betting person, I might believe we'd be illuminated, but I doubt if we are going to be pleased.
When I got there, a tad late, one attendee was waxing—well, not rhapsodic, but perhaps the opposite of rhapsodic: frenentic?—on the topic of Whatcom County’s desire to kill us all by urging us to get H1N1 vaccinations, even though the County doesn’t have many doses with which to target us, and even though we are feeling deprived about not having them. Just the gentleman’s point, though: the County was encouraging us to have shots that would risk our lives, and he wished the Association to protest this County action. If anyone produces minutes of the meeting, I imagine the gentleman’s views will be accurately recorded, if not in full detail.
It is very hard, I find, to know quite what to do when people up here—and not just a few of them—wish to convey their somewhat unusual views at considerable length to others. You nod (that’s the yes-yes nod), and then you think about responding but decide ‘not a good idea’ very quickly, and then you begin to nod (as in the dropping off to sleep nod). The only honest response I could make would be so profoundly impolite that I could not probably make it. So there you are. You just put it in the minutes.
And then we talked about trash (that is, trash collection or more specifically no-trash-collection) a bit. Is there light at the end of the tunnel? ‘None whatsoever,’ was the reply of the TA Director most attuned to the topic. But we talked about it some more anyway. One of the things I like about the trash collection problem is that we are stuck with a problem which appears to be so profoundly unique and complex that it can never be solved. Everyone wants to solve it but no one is able to solve it; not even the people who appear, more or less, to have the power to solve it. Perhaps it is actually insoluable; perhaps there is no actual trash collection anywhere else in the world and that is why the problem is so hard. I seem to remember that we used to have it, but then I get things wrong in my memories now and then. Perhaps it is only a dream; perhaps we have never had and thus very probably never will have trash collection. First, let us focus on going to the moon, say, or requiring people to have their septic systems inspected.
And thus did we segue into the TA's final topic of the evening. Some time ago, the County, along with other counties in Puget Sound, I was told, passed uniform enabling legislation requiring that everyone in those counties with septic systems be required to have a septic system inspection from a certified inspector beginning this year. Presumably, they’ve spent the last year getting those inspectors certified. They’re employees in the private sector and the County did not establish fees for this service, so you pay what they charge which, according to the street, is in the vicinity of $200-$250, which is a little steep for a simple inspection.
Up here in Point Roberts, there are no sewers; there are only septic systems, so every house and business on the Point must have this inspection. In mid-October, we got a letter saying we had till early December to get the inspections done and if we didn’t do it by then, our moms were going to be very disappointed and our dads were going to be very angry, and so just get it done. It also sent us a list of local certified outfits: four of them in Point Roberts. Now, there are maybe 1800 water hook-ups (at least that’s the number I got from the Water Board in 2004, and more have been added since then). I assume if you have a water hookup, you are likely also to have a septic system. Which means that in about sixty days, 1800+ inspections are to be conducted by four companies/individuals (none of them employ even tens of inspectors, certainly). That's going to be a scheduling nightmare, I'd think. And if you figure an average charge of $200 (which is underestimating, from what I've heard), that looks to me like almost half a million dollars of new spending in Point Roberts and on Point Roberts businesses in only two months. Merry Christmas, indeed!
Now that’s an economic development plan if I ever heard of one. Although it’s a little narrowly focused, I’d think. It will have spillover, of course, because if systems fail, then systems must be repaired or replaced. Good economic times in 2010, as well. This, I’d think, is an issue with very long legs. We have not heard the end of this.
And if the letters to us from the County were the first act, in two weeks we are going to get the second act when a member of the County Council and a member of the County Counsel’s office come to explain this to us in one of those big community meetings. Monday, November 16, 7 pm, Community Center. After that event, everything will be illuminated. If I were a betting person, I might believe we'd be illuminated, but I doubt if we are going to be pleased.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Your County Government At Work
As I may have mentioned, we are having some trouble with trash collection up here in Point Roberts. The guy with the contract has announced he is throwing it in as of June 30. He will, apparently, continue to run the transfer station where we can bring our trash and recycling, I guess, but maybe not our recycling. Not clear to me.
Fortunately, the County Council has stepped forward into the breach—or into the trash--so to speak. Those of us on the Point Interface email list received the following email on June 1 from the person who is alleged to represent Point Roberts on the Council. Well, maybe not ‘represent’ us, but at least have some kind of knowledgeable relationship to us, and she has indeed been up here several times in recent years. Here is the entire text of that message:
Regarding what you may have heard or read, Whatcom County is responsible for your receiving responsible garbage service. If a certified garbage collector at any time interrupts or discontinues responsible, contracted garbage service, Whatcom County, working with the Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission will ensure your service will continue.
Please forward this information to anyone you think may be interested.
I will forward any related information I receive.
Barbara Brenner, Whatcom County Council Member
Ms. Brenner apparently has failed to receive any related information insofar as two weeks have passed without any further messages. I’m happy to know that the County has this responsibility, but I’m not sure what it means from the County’s perspective. The County itself, of course, has no garbage trucks, so the County itself isn’t going to be providing anything, including ‘responsible garbage service.’ It’s only responsible for finding somebody else to do that. That might take awhile; that might take forever. After all, the County wasn’t making much headway in the matter of the current ‘contracted garbage service’ (that is, the curbside recyling) that was discontinued some time ago. So I’m dubious about the likelihood of their proceeding to remedy the new situation with any particular speed.
I wonder if it ever occurs to elected politicians to communicate truthfully, honestly, straight talk and all that with the public? Maybe Ms. Brenner could have sent us something like this:
Yikes! We just heard that the guy with the certificate to collect garbage is pulling out at the end of the month and we don’t have any clear plans at the moment about what to do next. We’re hoping to have a meeting soon to see whether some other company would be interested in taking the task on. But for the moment, we are pretty clueless. We’ve been fiddling around with this problem for a couple of years, but, strangely, it never occurred to us that we might come to this unhappy situation because, of course, we are pretty short-term thinkers here what with elections coming up so often and you people up there being so low on our list of priorities. Sorry! Probably won’t do better next time, but I did want you to know that we are thinking about you and your problems.
I’d have been pretty pleased with that, even if I still had to haul my own trash.
Fortunately, the County Council has stepped forward into the breach—or into the trash--so to speak. Those of us on the Point Interface email list received the following email on June 1 from the person who is alleged to represent Point Roberts on the Council. Well, maybe not ‘represent’ us, but at least have some kind of knowledgeable relationship to us, and she has indeed been up here several times in recent years. Here is the entire text of that message:
Regarding what you may have heard or read, Whatcom County is responsible for your receiving responsible garbage service. If a certified garbage collector at any time interrupts or discontinues responsible, contracted garbage service, Whatcom County, working with the Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission will ensure your service will continue.
Please forward this information to anyone you think may be interested.
I will forward any related information I receive.
Barbara Brenner, Whatcom County Council Member
Ms. Brenner apparently has failed to receive any related information insofar as two weeks have passed without any further messages. I’m happy to know that the County has this responsibility, but I’m not sure what it means from the County’s perspective. The County itself, of course, has no garbage trucks, so the County itself isn’t going to be providing anything, including ‘responsible garbage service.’ It’s only responsible for finding somebody else to do that. That might take awhile; that might take forever. After all, the County wasn’t making much headway in the matter of the current ‘contracted garbage service’ (that is, the curbside recyling) that was discontinued some time ago. So I’m dubious about the likelihood of their proceeding to remedy the new situation with any particular speed.
I wonder if it ever occurs to elected politicians to communicate truthfully, honestly, straight talk and all that with the public? Maybe Ms. Brenner could have sent us something like this:
Yikes! We just heard that the guy with the certificate to collect garbage is pulling out at the end of the month and we don’t have any clear plans at the moment about what to do next. We’re hoping to have a meeting soon to see whether some other company would be interested in taking the task on. But for the moment, we are pretty clueless. We’ve been fiddling around with this problem for a couple of years, but, strangely, it never occurred to us that we might come to this unhappy situation because, of course, we are pretty short-term thinkers here what with elections coming up so often and you people up there being so low on our list of priorities. Sorry! Probably won’t do better next time, but I did want you to know that we are thinking about you and your problems.
I’d have been pretty pleased with that, even if I still had to haul my own trash.
Friday, January 2, 2009
An Unhappy New Year Already
Ready for a Happy New Year, I picked up the new issue of the All Point Bulletin to enjoy its annual recap of ‘the year that was.’ This is a nice tradition of small town newspapers in lots of places: the first issue of the year goes back and gathers up the last year’s important events, reminding readers of what they just went through. Since it is all in the past, there are no sudden shocks. There are good things and bad things to be reminded of, but it’s all familiar. There is a lot to be said for familiarity, just as there is a lot to be said for kindness and civility.
To my surprise, the front page of the Bulletin included, in addition to the year’s month by month reminiscences, a new item. Oh, shoot, no fun here. In the ongoing saga of recycling that we are engaged by and in, here in Point Roberts, a new shot has been fired across the bow. Ouch!
It is reported that a trio of locals has filed a complaint with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission demanding that the Commission (1) pull the permit of the current P.R. refuse and recycling company, (2) that it forbid the County from permitting any varying accommodation for recycling in Point Roberts, and (3) that a lot of penalties be assessed. It’s a document prepared by a lawyer, so it has a lot of that legalistic language that kind of sounds like the heart of the issue is that people are feeding babies poison candy. Not the fault of the complainants, of course; just the nature of the law and its mode of communicating. Nevertheless, reading the complaint makes it sound like it’s a pretty alarming issue. It’s full of accusations like abuse of the public trust, and lack of duty to the community and disingenuous and untrustworthy behavior and systematic manipulation of facts and law, not to mention threats and fear-mongering.
Pretty amazing: all that right here in little downtown Point Roberts.
It’s not clear to me why this issue has become so heated, but I would guess that the underlying fear is revealed in the final sentences of the complaint:
This matter . . . leaves the Point Roberts community facing a slippery slope toward the potential degradation or elimination of other essential services the community deserve. We should be able to enjoy the same level of service as other citizens of Whatcom County, be equally able to fulfill our duties toward environmental protection and effective waste management, and not be discriminated against because of our location.
We are about to watch the dominoes fall, I guess. Today it’s curbside recycling, tomorrow it’s water and power. Next year, they'll be taking my street away. Somehow, I just don’t feel that worried. ‘Terrible things could happen,’ isn’t really a very persuasive or reasoned claim in the absence of any evidence of likelihood of ‘terrible things happening.’
We need to be treated just like everybody else in Whatcom County, on the other hand, is a claim about equity. But it’s not a very strong one. I lived through years of children telling me that everybody had to get exactly the same thing or ‘it’s not fair.’ Any parent knows the ‘it’s not fair’ claim is usually bogus. In most circumstances, we are better off figuring out exactly what works best in specific contexts, not forcing everyone into the same Procrustean allotment. I would strongly argue that, in most civic service provision, the weirdness of Point Roberts’ location means that solutions that work easily in the rest of the state might not work here and something individualized needs to be worked out. Additionally, its important to remember that differences matter and that difference is not the same as discrimination. In fact, Point Roberts just received a lot of public funding for 150 acres of public preservation at Lily Point. Is government ‘discriminating’ against every other 5 square miles of Washington state if it doesn’t provide them with an equal park?
I may be prejudiced in this matter because up in Roberts Creek, we used to have curbside recycling, just as we used to have it here in Point Roberts, but it didn’t work from an economic perspective (just as it probably won’t work here), so now it’s self-haul and for the past 10 years, that’s worked fine. But, of course, they're Canadians.
If you want to read the complaint, you can find it here.
Then you need to find the complaint document (the third item on the list), which is Docket #082129 ‘complaint.doc ID: 346AOE’ You just click on it and it will come up as a Word document.
To my surprise, the front page of the Bulletin included, in addition to the year’s month by month reminiscences, a new item. Oh, shoot, no fun here. In the ongoing saga of recycling that we are engaged by and in, here in Point Roberts, a new shot has been fired across the bow. Ouch!
It is reported that a trio of locals has filed a complaint with the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission demanding that the Commission (1) pull the permit of the current P.R. refuse and recycling company, (2) that it forbid the County from permitting any varying accommodation for recycling in Point Roberts, and (3) that a lot of penalties be assessed. It’s a document prepared by a lawyer, so it has a lot of that legalistic language that kind of sounds like the heart of the issue is that people are feeding babies poison candy. Not the fault of the complainants, of course; just the nature of the law and its mode of communicating. Nevertheless, reading the complaint makes it sound like it’s a pretty alarming issue. It’s full of accusations like abuse of the public trust, and lack of duty to the community and disingenuous and untrustworthy behavior and systematic manipulation of facts and law, not to mention threats and fear-mongering.
Pretty amazing: all that right here in little downtown Point Roberts.
It’s not clear to me why this issue has become so heated, but I would guess that the underlying fear is revealed in the final sentences of the complaint:
This matter . . . leaves the Point Roberts community facing a slippery slope toward the potential degradation or elimination of other essential services the community deserve. We should be able to enjoy the same level of service as other citizens of Whatcom County, be equally able to fulfill our duties toward environmental protection and effective waste management, and not be discriminated against because of our location.
We are about to watch the dominoes fall, I guess. Today it’s curbside recycling, tomorrow it’s water and power. Next year, they'll be taking my street away. Somehow, I just don’t feel that worried. ‘Terrible things could happen,’ isn’t really a very persuasive or reasoned claim in the absence of any evidence of likelihood of ‘terrible things happening.’
We need to be treated just like everybody else in Whatcom County, on the other hand, is a claim about equity. But it’s not a very strong one. I lived through years of children telling me that everybody had to get exactly the same thing or ‘it’s not fair.’ Any parent knows the ‘it’s not fair’ claim is usually bogus. In most circumstances, we are better off figuring out exactly what works best in specific contexts, not forcing everyone into the same Procrustean allotment. I would strongly argue that, in most civic service provision, the weirdness of Point Roberts’ location means that solutions that work easily in the rest of the state might not work here and something individualized needs to be worked out. Additionally, its important to remember that differences matter and that difference is not the same as discrimination. In fact, Point Roberts just received a lot of public funding for 150 acres of public preservation at Lily Point. Is government ‘discriminating’ against every other 5 square miles of Washington state if it doesn’t provide them with an equal park?
I may be prejudiced in this matter because up in Roberts Creek, we used to have curbside recycling, just as we used to have it here in Point Roberts, but it didn’t work from an economic perspective (just as it probably won’t work here), so now it’s self-haul and for the past 10 years, that’s worked fine. But, of course, they're Canadians.
If you want to read the complaint, you can find it here.
Then you need to find the complaint document (the third item on the list), which is Docket #082129 ‘complaint.doc ID: 346AOE’ You just click on it and it will come up as a Word document.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Beach Life
The newspaper this months brings another host of problems to us here in Point Roberts. The newest one is the county’s shoreline management amendments. As I previously mentioned, Washington seems to give ownership on waterfront property clear down to the low tide mark. However, it makes up for it, happily, by requiring something of those who own that property. Currently, it is defining buildings/structures/houses/etc. within 150 feet of the water (not clear to me whether that’s high water mark, low water mark, or some midline) as ‘non-conforming structures.’ And, as ‘non-conforming structures, they need to have special permits if the owners wish to rebuild or add to the building/structure/etc., if the addition has a value in excess of $5,781. (Such a nice, precise number, no? You do wonder where that came from.)
Local waterfront owners are, the newspaper reports, up in arms, although it may also be local realtors who are feeling bad. Some waterfront property owners have filed a suit against the county on the grounds that the County Council is not following proper procedures in making these changes, but the unhappiness is all about property rights. You might think that if you were lucky enough to have a piece of beachfront property in Whatcom County, you’d be willing just to count your blessings. But here in the land of libertarians, people surely do feel that they have pretty much an absolute right to do whatever they want on their own property. Lots of luck when the Washington State Department of Ecology AND the county are on the other side of the court.
The unhappy lawsuit filers have declared in their suit that these new rules are excessively restrictive. I wonder if they get the same people to quantify ‘excessive’ as the County gets to quantify the allowable addition’s value? And what would that line of work be called? Excessively restrictive seems a little like overkill to me. Excessively inconvenient to the owners, doubtless. But they seem about as restrictive as they are.
Nevertheless, the litigants maintain in their suit, according to the All Point Bulletin, that this excessive restrictiveness must be stopped because, if it is allowed to go forward, their waterfront property will ‘be rendered virtually valueless .’ Is virtually valueless much more than actually valueless? That statement itself seems excessively hysterical, I’d say. Perhaps I ought to make an offer to one of the beachfront owners. I'd be willing to offer a quarter of the assessed value of one of these places. After all, if they’re ‘virtually valueless,’ a quarter of the assessed value ought to be a terrific offer which would be quickly taken up. And then I too would be lucky enough to live on the beach, even if in a ‘non-conforming structure,’ and could worry about my rights being violated.
Local waterfront owners are, the newspaper reports, up in arms, although it may also be local realtors who are feeling bad. Some waterfront property owners have filed a suit against the county on the grounds that the County Council is not following proper procedures in making these changes, but the unhappiness is all about property rights. You might think that if you were lucky enough to have a piece of beachfront property in Whatcom County, you’d be willing just to count your blessings. But here in the land of libertarians, people surely do feel that they have pretty much an absolute right to do whatever they want on their own property. Lots of luck when the Washington State Department of Ecology AND the county are on the other side of the court.
The unhappy lawsuit filers have declared in their suit that these new rules are excessively restrictive. I wonder if they get the same people to quantify ‘excessive’ as the County gets to quantify the allowable addition’s value? And what would that line of work be called? Excessively restrictive seems a little like overkill to me. Excessively inconvenient to the owners, doubtless. But they seem about as restrictive as they are.
Nevertheless, the litigants maintain in their suit, according to the All Point Bulletin, that this excessive restrictiveness must be stopped because, if it is allowed to go forward, their waterfront property will ‘be rendered virtually valueless .’ Is virtually valueless much more than actually valueless? That statement itself seems excessively hysterical, I’d say. Perhaps I ought to make an offer to one of the beachfront owners. I'd be willing to offer a quarter of the assessed value of one of these places. After all, if they’re ‘virtually valueless,’ a quarter of the assessed value ought to be a terrific offer which would be quickly taken up. And then I too would be lucky enough to live on the beach, even if in a ‘non-conforming structure,’ and could worry about my rights being violated.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Partners, Please
Back in Point Roberts, I was suitably impressed by the speed with which we were hurried through the border station. It was almost as if they had finally decided that having a Nexus pass actually makes you a ‘trusted traveler,’ as they say in all their published materials, rather than just someone called a 'trusted traveler'; trusted enough to get to go through without a lot of questions about why you are here, e.g. ‘I live here,’ the routine answer. Not only was it fast but the border agent, one of several known for less than stellar cheerfulness, said ‘You’re welcome,’ when I offered my routine ‘Thank You,’ as he told us to go on through. I am forced to conclude that they finally hired some higher quality communication-education programs for them.
And then on to a newspaper filled with events of the past month that we didn’t much know about because you can’t know about them until the newspaper comes out on the first of the month and tells you about them. One other newspaper event also happened. The Bellingham Herald, which last month featured a very critical article about Point Roberts, an article that occasioned about thirty people to write very unkind comments in the on-line edition, turned out an extraordinarily welcome editorial on the topic of Point Roberts. (I wrote about that article on May 26, 'Volunteer Rules.')
‘Give them a break,’ was the essence of the editorial, titled ‘Pay attention to frustrated Point Roberts residents.’ (May 31, Bellingham Herald, B3). My favorite sentence is ‘Because of its unique geographic position. . . the Point has scores of unique problems and conditions.” Absolutely: that is exactly the point about the Point that, I think, we would like the government to understand. The problems are unique, and whether we get standard solutions or no solutions because the problem is unique is irrelevant because both make us fairly crazy.
At the moment, the recycling issue is boiling over again because the county is recommending that our trash collector (private) be decertified/lose his trash collecting license, because he can’t offer curb-side recycling. If he and his business go away, there won't be any trash or recycle collections, let alone trash and recycling handled exactly the way that some legislative entity thinks it should be done everywhere in the state. There aren't likely to be a line of people anxious to collect the trash and recycling of approximately 17% of the local households. We need to hang on to what we've got.
Listen up, Whatcom County! I think it’s important to admit, to make absolutely clear that we understand one thing: our problems aren’t more special than any other community’s problems; it is just that solutions that work most places probably won’t work here. Here’s the chance for you all to demonstrate your creativity, to demonstrate that government can work, can be responsive to local issues. And here’s a chance for the local residents to demonstrate their creativity, as well, by understanding that the standard response to slow government won’t work here either. Threats, whines, generalized complaints: we need something better, more imaginative than that kind of stuff. The County has to work on their end, but we need to work on ours, too.
Also, Whatcom County: Thanks for the financial support in purchasing Lily Point.
And then on to a newspaper filled with events of the past month that we didn’t much know about because you can’t know about them until the newspaper comes out on the first of the month and tells you about them. One other newspaper event also happened. The Bellingham Herald, which last month featured a very critical article about Point Roberts, an article that occasioned about thirty people to write very unkind comments in the on-line edition, turned out an extraordinarily welcome editorial on the topic of Point Roberts. (I wrote about that article on May 26, 'Volunteer Rules.')
‘Give them a break,’ was the essence of the editorial, titled ‘Pay attention to frustrated Point Roberts residents.’ (May 31, Bellingham Herald, B3). My favorite sentence is ‘Because of its unique geographic position. . . the Point has scores of unique problems and conditions.” Absolutely: that is exactly the point about the Point that, I think, we would like the government to understand. The problems are unique, and whether we get standard solutions or no solutions because the problem is unique is irrelevant because both make us fairly crazy.
At the moment, the recycling issue is boiling over again because the county is recommending that our trash collector (private) be decertified/lose his trash collecting license, because he can’t offer curb-side recycling. If he and his business go away, there won't be any trash or recycle collections, let alone trash and recycling handled exactly the way that some legislative entity thinks it should be done everywhere in the state. There aren't likely to be a line of people anxious to collect the trash and recycling of approximately 17% of the local households. We need to hang on to what we've got.
Listen up, Whatcom County! I think it’s important to admit, to make absolutely clear that we understand one thing: our problems aren’t more special than any other community’s problems; it is just that solutions that work most places probably won’t work here. Here’s the chance for you all to demonstrate your creativity, to demonstrate that government can work, can be responsive to local issues. And here’s a chance for the local residents to demonstrate their creativity, as well, by understanding that the standard response to slow government won’t work here either. Threats, whines, generalized complaints: we need something better, more imaginative than that kind of stuff. The County has to work on their end, but we need to work on ours, too.
Also, Whatcom County: Thanks for the financial support in purchasing Lily Point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)