Feature Story

Who will Govern the Port of Bellingham?

The Port of Bellingham, the second largest local government in our part of Washington, faces some critical decisions that will affect every resident of Whatcom County. Among other things, the shape and cost of one of the largest redevelopment projects on the West Coast, how much of the former Georgia Pacific mill should be public space, and how much job-creating industrial property? Now that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has chosen Newport, Oregon rather than Bellingham as the site of its relocated Marine Center, who will be the anchor tenant for the new waterfront? What is Huxley College¹s future on the waterfront?

These and other issues will be spotlighted when the Bellingham City Club welcomes the four finalists for two contested seats on the Port of Bellingham Commission, Wednesday, Sept. 23, at noon. Challengers John Blethen, Mike McAuley, and incumbents Doug Smith and Scott Walker will be questioned by Tracy Ellis, News Director at KGMI, and Tim Johnson, Editor of the Cascadia Weekly. The four candidates will also answer questions from the City Club audience.

Founded in 1993, Bellingham City Club is a non-partisan and non-profit membership organization that fosters dialogue and debate on important issues facing our community. Programs are the fourth Wednesday of each month at Northwood Hall, 3240 Northwest Avenue. A buffet lunch is served at 12:00p.m.

All programs are open to the public.

When: Noon, Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009

Where: Northwood Hall, 3240 Northwest Ave., Bellingham

Cost: Members $11, Non-members $16

P.O. Box 964

Bellingham, WA 98227

For more information:

Contact: Chuck Foster

Several years ago my family and I attended an Ann Coulter Event in Bellingham at the Mt Baker Theater. Maybe some of you were there. We wanted to listen and judge for ourselves what the conservative Ms Coulter had to say. At the time those from the left side of the political spectrum did not wish us to attend. Demonstrators were up to a block away accosting people and ranting at them for attending. I remember one unwashed protestor in my face with several piercing on her face saying that Ann Coulter and George Bush were baby killers. I was intimidated to keep silent because my family was with me. The pounding of the protester’s drums continued outside the door where Ms. Coulter was speaking for some time. There were none among the demonstrators that wished us to listen to Ms Coulter and only seemed to want to limit Ms. Coulter’s free speech as well as my families right to free assembly.

Well that was not the case during Saturday’s gathering in Mt Vernon on Saturday Night. Yes there were those who wished to express their concern about their buss words “hate and fear” but there were as many if not more who expressed their support of free speech and tolerance for a diverse opinion. Finally people are standing up to progressive liberal political correctness even without the funding and organization that the progressive’s posess.

The Herald states that there were more against the Beck key giving than were for it and the Associated Press quotes the fire department as saying the two forces were about equal and there is this author who says the 250 or so protesters of the Beck visit were well organized and moved around in groups of 30 or 50 shouting their disdain of Mt Vernon and Glen Beck and Hate and Fear and any other passionate buzz words of which they could think. T-shirts with “Hate is not a Mt. Vernon Value” (who could disagree with that one) Bull Horns and red and yellow vests were an indication of how well organized and funded the anti Beck forces were.

I was surprised to see Liberal Progressive County Councilman Seth Fleetwood at the event. It could be he was out campaigning against his Write In opponent Orphalee Smith for the At Large Bellingham City Council position… he was just in the wrong city.

Those Unduly Burdened, Rise and Fight!

By Bill Quehrn 10/30/09

Will somebody please explain to me what unduly burdened means? Whatcom County’s Home Rule Charter states in Section 1.11:

The rights of the individual citizen shall be guaranteed under the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Washington. No regulation or ordinance shall be drafted and adopted without consideration of and provisions for compensation to those unduly burdened.

I have brought this section of the Charter into the public debate on numerous occasions objecting to Whatcom County Council actions that certainly appear to be unduly burdensome. To my horror, everyone just looks at me sympathetically and tells me Section 1.11 has to do with so-called “takings” laws that the courts have never really defined so no one really understands what they mean.

What’s to understand? If the county decides building a road across your land is in the public good, your property is legally condemned, you get paid for it, and you are absolved of any further responsibility for it.

However, if the county decides as a public good that some of your land must be placed into critical area, set-back, or wetland status you don’t get a dime for it, you lose the value it once had, you still must pay taxes on it, maintain it, and you’re still legally responsible for it, even though it essentially has become public land.

A Washington State Attorney General Advisory Memorandum, issued by Attorney General Rob McKenna, notes that while government regulation of private property is a necessary and accepted aspect of modern society, some limits do apply. Generally a “taking” occurs when government regulation or action permanently deprives an entire piece of property of all economic utility short of nuisance violations or other extreme cases.

However, Mr. McKenna’s Memorandum further notes that a regulatory taking may occur when a government regulation goes so far as to acquire a public benefit (rather than preventing some harm) in circumstances where fairness and justice require the public as a whole to bear that cost rather than the individual property owner. He also notes that in some cases the state or federal constitutions may trump a local government action and require compensation to an aggrieved --- make that an unduly burdened --- property owner.

Courts have generally tended to favor the police powers of municipalities in lawsuits where a regulatory taking, or what is also called a substantive due process violation, has occurred. That leaves the legal burden on the property owner, who is the very one claiming they are already unduly burdened by the government action, to prove a taking of any degree has occurred. Where’s the “fairness and justice” in that?

Whatcom County voters did not add Section 1.11 to the Charter or approve a subsequent revision of the section with the idea that county government officials could ignore it anytime they found it to be an inconvenience. However, recent actions by county government strongly suggest that it is time individual citizens … and even our county’s small towns and other municipal jurisdictions … start reminding Whatcom County’s elected and appointed officials that they will not be “taking” this kind of burdensome abuse or disregard of our Home Rule Charter any longer.

It’s time to rise up and fight! CAPR’s time certainly seems to have come!