Help us continue the Fourth Corner
The Fourth Corner A Feature Story
As you know, Whatcom County government continues to grapple with land use issues, especially those related to handling growth.  Most citizens would agree that the Council should have the best possible information available before making final decisions that could dramatically impact our future with regard to urban growth areas, farmland protection, open space, etc.

A major component that has been used in recent decision-making on this issue has been a poll of local citizens done by the Whatcom Legacy Project, paid for by a Whatcom County Council grant. The survey was conducted by opinion research consultants Davis, Hibbitts & Midghall and is called the Whatcom County Values and Beliefs Survey. From their website, the Legacy Project had this to say about the poll:
LAND USE DECISIONS BASED ON INVALID SURVEY ??  YOU DECIDE Following is Brett Bonner's Press Release and Documentation
“The Whatcom Legacy Project worked with Whatcom County to commission a scientifically-valid survey of Whatcom County residents’ values related to long range growth and land use. The telephone survey sought the opinions of 400 county residents. It was conducted by the firm Davis, Hibbitts and Midgall and funded largely by Whatcom County. It is one step in the process developed by WLP to have the people paint a portrait of what they want Whatcom County to look like for their children, grandchildren, and even great-grandchildren. We hope these results will be useful to citizens and local officials when discussing and deliberating over growth and land use issues.”
The survey’s results showed that an overwhelming majority of residents were very concerned about protecting farmland, forestland and parks; by comparison, relatively few people seemed concerned about economic growth and jobs.

This anomaly prompted me to look more closely at the survey methodology, and I found that many of the questions seemed somewhat biased and leading.  While I am certainly not an expert, I believe that our decision makers may have been misled by the survey results, and may be proposing legislation and new rules based on faulty information.
I became concerned about this earlier this year, but I did not want to send this out or release any information until after the general election, to ensure that I could not be accused of trying to sway the election outcomes.

I decided to investigate, and I was able to get Patrick Lanne of Public Opinion Strategies in New York to look at the survey and render an opinion. In his report, he said:
“In my opinion, the poll was conducted to get a certain result.  There was very little introduction of relevant or strong opposing views.  No questions on the economy, impact on taxes, etc.  It was pretty one-sided.”
Krieg also had questions about the survey’s methodology and the wording of many questions.

As a third source, I contacted Patrick Barkey at the University of Montana Bureau of Business and Economic Research.  He forwarded the material to their survey research developer who, while less critical, also expressed concerns about the poll’s methodology. And while he says the results shouldn’t be of  “sufficient severity to cause one to completely dismiss the results,” he also pointed out that:
Public Opinion Strategies is highly respected, but identifies itself as a polling firm that primarily serves Republican clients. To not have an appearance of bias, I also sought out experts from the academic world to take a look.

Dr. John Krieg is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics at Western Washington University; he is also Director of the Office of Survey Research.  In part of his opinion on the Whatcom Legacy Project poll, he said that he had problems with the framing of the questions “in terms of reality.” He went on to say that


“In itself, this criticism is enough for me to completely discount the results of the survey.  I would argue vehemently that this type of survey should not inform public policy.”
The survey instrument does contain examples of poorly written questions, in a few cases….There is also some use of unbalanced scales that offer more options on one side of the question (high, urgent, etc.) than the other.”
Based on the above input from experts in the field and academia, I am urging that the County Council look into the credibility of the survey and perhaps conduct a new one. I also urge the council to consider what the motives may have been for the Whatcom Legacy Project to skew the information.  Most importantly, I urge that the Council completely disregard the survey results when making decisions that will impact our future.

I have attached the survey results and questions, along with emails I received from the polling experts and an article from earlier this year from the Bellingham Herald. Additionally, I have included a recent position paper from the special interest group “Futurewise” who use the survey as the main justification to justify their political positions regarding land use issues.
Fellow County Council Members:

I'm sure you have all been considering what issues should be given priority consideration in 2010.  There are many things that come to mind, as the breadth of responsibilities of our county government is vast.  I speculate the financial condition of Whatcom County government will necessarily be our collective highest priority, as I am very concerned about balancing expenditures to revenues.  In that light, I also know that the citizens of Whatcom County are tightening the belt in their finances also, and I am committed to tackling our budget problems without taking more money from the citizens through any form of property tax increases.

But as I read and listen to local media, the majority of discussion regarding county government continues to be not financial, but rather our regulatory framework surrounding land-use throughout Whatcom County.  These concerns are confirmed by the number of citizens and other landowners who have contacted me personally with suggestions, observations and ideas.

In this regard, I also have seriously pondered - and agree with - the statement made by Executive Kremen in this week's Cascadia Weekly:

"I have made it clear to those currently on the council that I don’t want to see the good, important advances the council has made over the past decade unraveled. I am going to resist any significant effort to change the land use, the critical areas, the shoreline rules that have been put in place."

Again, I take that statement seriously and personally.  Having served on the Council for a decade, and also in my personal business of assisting landowners through various permitting processes, I have pretty strong first-hand impressions about what works and doesn't work in our land-use regulatory system.  I could quickly suggest what I think are meaningful changes in regulations such as (but not limited to) Critical Areas, Shorelines, Seasonal Clearing, Agriculture Protection Overlay, and Water Resource Protection Overlay; ideas that I believe would achieve the intended environmental protection more effectively while working better for property owners and users.

However, I'm going to advocate a bold suggestion to you, my fellow council members, in this regard.  In 2010, I am not inclined to propose or support any removal or significant change of any existing regulations that are currently in place to assure environmental or cultural protection.  This particularly includes the topics I mentioned in the previous paragraph.  I know this will disappoint many landowners who are directly impacted by rules that appear unnecessary or are over-reaching.  But I also feel strongly that the Council must exercise considerable restraint and caution when it comes to making those kinds of adjustments.  I am not suggesting that these topics are not worth considerable discussion, review and attention in 2010.  They certainly are, and I hope we have opportunities to pursue analyzing these regulations this year at length.  But our approach rightly should begin with a broader exercise of prioritization, as well as a comprehensive presentation of the interaction of various local and state policies and legislation affecting land-use.  Make no mistake - I am optimistic that county government can serve its citizens far more effectively than we currently do with our land-use rules.  But our approach must ensure no compromises to our community's high standards of long-term environmental preservation.  The maintenance of those high standards and values must not be compromised.

I believe that with broader, but (what I'm proposing as) non-binding discussions regarding the above topics, we will each clarify our ideas on what could and should be done.  The voters will be making an important choice in their pick of our "7th Council Member" this coming November, and I expect our ongoing land-use dialogue will set much of the framework for the candidates to debate who aspire to filling that seat.

Instead,  for the immediate term I would like to see work continued on the most recent Growth Management compliance efforts.  I believe that both the 2009 Council's work on Urban Growth Areas, as well as the "Executive's Recommendation" fulfilled broad community values and was helpful to our long-term planning for Whatcom County.  But simultaneously, I am convinced the removal of the Urban Growth Area designation (or placement of the same into "Reserve" status) in certain areas was erroneous on the part of the County Council, and is already having significant negative impact to citizens and landowners living in those areas.  This situation merits immediate review and consideration.  Today I notified Whatcom County Planning in writing of my intent as a council member to propose to the full council a reconsideration of the following:

Removing the south "Yew Street UGA" (Bellingham) from "Reserve" status
Removing the "Vista-Malloy" portion of the UGA (Ferndale) from "Reserve" status
Re-designating the "West Blaine UGA'" (Blaine) as an Urban Growth Area
Removing the "Provisional" status of the General Commercial zoning within the Birch Bay UGA
Designating a 5-Acre density (instead of 10-acre) in the areas removed from the Birch Bay UGA

In addition to these items, there is another issue - considered by the county Planning Commission several years ago - that has been brought to my attention that is related to Urban Growth Areas.  There is a restriction on businesses both in the URMX zone (in the Bellingham UGA), and in the Resort Commercial Zone (particularly in the Birch Bay UGA) that does not allow 'drive through' windows in food-service establishments.  I have been provided with an example in each of these zones where a commercial investment proposal, which would provide employment, economic development, and neighborhood commercial services, can not proceed because investors can not anticipate a sustainable economic model without a drive-through component.  In these zones - already designated and planned-for as 'commercial' - we see immediately and obviously where a simple correction can be made that may have an immediate economic stimulus.  I am proposing that specific change now, because provision of employment and other economic opportunities is a crucial priority during these difficult times.

Finally, as I considered these matters and reviewed the processes for council member-initiated changes, I see in the county code where we've limited zoning text-amendments to an annual cycle (with a deadline of December 31 for the following year's consideration), but excepted the Planning Director from this limitation.  I am proposing that County Council members also be excepted from that self-imposed limitation, as we have as much a responsibility to be responsive to community concerns throughout the year in the same manner - or even more so - as the Planning Director.  This change would not impact our compliance regarding state laws affecting annual comprehensive plan changes.

If you have any questions or comments regarding any of this, please don't hesitate to contact me.  I believe our financial challenges are going to dominate much of our immediate concerns, but I also wanted to share with you my thoughts on current land-use and planning matters, with so much attention being placed on that topic.  Hopefully as we pursue this discussion, the community will have a better sense of expectation as to where our priorities lie

Bonner Story on Whatcom Legacy Project
Sam Crawford resides in the 2nd Council District of Whatcom County and serves on the Council in his current term until January 12, 2012.