Is Governor Gregoire Providing the Leadership We Need Now?

Below is a letter sent today to Governor Gregoire by the King County Democrats Legislative Action Committee. What do you think?

Dear Governor Gregoire:

The King County Democrats Legislative Action Committee is disappointed with your leadership on resolving our state budget crisis by not considering revenue increases as a necessary option. We are one of only two states (along with Louisiana!) where revenue increases are not on the table. Certainly circumstances have changed since your campaign last year. Leadership requires adapting to changed circumstances. The changed economic reality and the magnitude of the budget shortfall should provide a sufficient rationale to the public to explain why you have changed your mind as to how to deal with the current situation.

"An all-cuts budget doesn't cut it." We should not sacrifice the well-being and the very lives of our most sick and vulnerable citizens. Please support revenue increases to maintain our state's safety net as well as provide for the educational needs of our children.

We believe a reasonable starting point should be that program cuts and revenue increases should be given equal weight in dealing with the budget shortfall. That means no more than 50% of the deficit should be program cuts. And a revenue package to make up the other 50% of the budget shortfall should be put on the ballot for voters to vote on.

Letting the voters decide is what they said they wanted. Give them the option. Let them make the final decision.

Sarajane Siegfriedt & Steve Zemke
King County Democrats Legislative Action Committee Co-Chairs

Suzie Sheary
King County Democrats Chair

Add your name to the letter. A copy of the letter as a petition to sign is available at:

http://www.petitiononline.com/20090318/petition-sign.html

What if they held an election and nobody came?

Talk about invisibility to the general public, the upcoming King Conservation District Election this Thursday , March 19, 2009 wins the prize. It is a county wide election for one of three elected seats on the King Conservation District and you probably don't even know its happening.

To make things even more confusing, the environmental candidate Mark Sollitto, while listed on the Washington State Conservation Commission website as a candidate, is actually not listed on the local King Conservation District website or on the written ballot because of a technical error - the 50 signatures of voters petition was not received in time and he is now running a write in campaign.

Surprisingly a write candidate can win in this election because of the overall dismal turnout in this election. In 2008 only 196 people voted. In 2007 only 1095 people voted on 2 candidates; in 2006 only 834 people voted on 2 candidates and in 2005 2 candidates and a write in candidate received a total of 481 votes.

For comparison purposes the overall number of registered voters in King County for the Special Election for King County Elections Director last month saw 250, 394 voters out of 1,117,869 registered voters actually vote.

There are two other candidates listed on this years ballot. Preston Drew is a forester and opposes the King County Critical Areas Ordinance. He is being supported by Republicans and conservatives. David Mauk is the other candidate and runs the Ascent Foundation. For Mark Sollitto to win, people need to write his name in as a write in candidate.

Mark Sollitto has been endorsed by the King County Conservation Voters. In an email from them, King County Councilmember Larry Phillips wrote,

"I urge you to vote for Mark Sollitto for King County Conservation District. My friend Mark Sollitto is running as a write-in candidate against an anti CAO, Cedar County property rights activist. Mark brings a proven record of over 30 years of consensus-based, conservation-minded results - he helped protect the 90,000 acre Snoqualmie Forest, Preston Mill, Rock Creek, East Sammamish Trail, Meadowbrook Farm and Cougar Mountain. Please join me, and the King County Conservation Voters in supporting Mark next Thursday."

Mark Sollitto is a former elected Council member of North Bend , having served for two terms and recently retired from King County where he worked on land transfer issues for conservation areas being protected.

This year the King Conservation District had a budget totalling $5.8 million based on assessments of King County property. Unfortunately they don't send out voter's pamphlets or ballots to voters. You either know from a group you belong to that has an interest in conservation and natural resource issues or you miss this election completely.

In recent years the right wing so called property rights groups have worked the elections. Environmental groups have been less proactive in participating in the process which actually has a large budget for natural resources issues and grants and employs according to their website, 16 full time staff people.

Here a chance to vote and make a difference. Get out and Vote Thursday.

Polling Locations and times: Thursday March 19, 2009

AUBURN King County Library/Muckleshoot Branch - 39917 Auburn Enumclaw Road S.E. , Auburn WA 98092 Poll hours 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

BELLEVUE King County Library/Bellevue Regional Branch - 1111 110th Avenue NE , Bellevue WA 98004 Poll hours 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

CARNATION King County Library/Carnation Branch - 4804 Tolt Avenue , Carnation WA 98014 Poll hours 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

COVINGTON King County Library/Covington Branch - 27100 164th Ave. S.E. , Covington WA 98042 Poll hours 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

DES MOINES King County Library/Des Moines Branch - 21620 11th Avenue S. , Des Moines WA 98198 Poll hours 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

ENUMCLAW Enumclaw Public Library - 1700 First Street , Enumclaw WA 98022 Poll hours 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

ISSAQUAHKing County Library/Issaquah Branch - 10 W. Sunset Way, Issaquah WA 98027Poll hours 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

NORTH BEND King County Library/North Bend Branch - 115 E. 4th, North Bend WA 98045 Poll hours 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

REDMOND King County Library/Redmond Regional Branch - 15990 N.E. 85th, Redmond WA Poll hours 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

RENTON Renton Community Center - 1715 Maple valley Hwy., Renton WA 98057 Poll hours 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

SEATTLE Seattle Public Library (Downtown Main Branch) - 1000 Fourth Ave. , Seattle WA 98104 Poll hours 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

SHORELINE King County Library/Shoreline Branch - 345 NE 175th, Shoreline WA 98155 Poll hours 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

VASHON King County Library/Vashon Branch - 17210 Vashon Hwy. S.W. , Vashon Island WA Poll hours 10:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.

This dismal election process should be changed by the Washington State Legislature in the future. Voting for candidates for King Conservation District and the other 46 conservation districts in the state should be on a primary or general election ballot to afford people an opportunity to particicpate. The current process makes a mockery of fair public participation in an election process. Yet the public is being taxed to pay for the conservation districts.

In Snohomish County they are holding an election tomorrow where voting is from 2 to 6 PM at their office. This is for all of Snohomish County. That is absurd.

Consuming the Planet

Thomas L Friedman of the New York Times in an opinion entitled "The Inflection is Near?" continues his insightful questioning of our current worldwide economic predicament by asking what he calls a radical question. I don't consider it radical at all and have been thinking the same thought for quite a while. The question is one of sustainability - is our current economy based on excessive consumption, throwaways, never ending growth and planned obsolescence part of the problem?

As Friedman asks:

"Let’s today step out of the normal boundaries of analysis of our economic crisis and ask a radical question: What if the crisis of 2008 represents something much more fundamental than a deep recession? What if it’s telling us that the whole growth model we created over the last 50 years is simply unsustainable economically and ecologically and that 2008 was when we hit the wall — when Mother Nature and the market both said: “No more.”

We have created a system for growth that depended on our building more and more stores to sell more and more stuff made in more and more factories in China, powered by more and more coal that would cause more and more climate change but earn China more and more dollars to buy more and more U.S. T-bills so America would have more and more money to build more and more stores and sell more and more stuff that would employ more and more Chinese ..."

It's time to rethink where the world is heading and whether it is where we really want to go. Many are now realizing that the idea of a "free market economy" really was just another campaign slogan for businesses to promote and maximize profits without reasonable oversight and regulation and that it cost us all dearly while a few made out for a while like bandits.

Growth is another one of those economic slogans that has had too little questioning but that has many consequences. Nature has checks and balances. If growth exceeds the carrying capacity of the environment, collapse of the population occurs. An economy based on ever increasing consumption can not sustain itself and part of the current economic collapse is the result of trying to set up ever increasing patterns of growth in consumption of material goods that are derived from limited resources and involve environmental cots. These costs now potentially include the very survivability of the planet and life as we know it.

Also an economy driven by ever increasing consumption that does not internalize the costs of its production but instead externalizes the costs of waste and pollution and throwaways onto the larger society is doomed to fail. While a few may reap short term economic benefits, such an economy ultimately will collapse because of its accumulated negative impacts on the environment and humans.

Climate change and polluted air and loss of drinking water and accumulating toxic waste are all part of a Faustian bargain driven by an economy run on greed rather than the common good. Eventually the unmitigated costs outweigh and will collapse a system that exceeds the carrying capacity of the planet.

Population growth is another one of those issues people don't feel comfortable talking about. Yet looking the other way is not going to make things better. More does not mean better. Are we more free if we have more people competing for the same limited resources? More people competing for the same pie, means each of us has less.

This crisis can be an opportunity for paradigm changes in the way we do things. Let's take some time to see if what we've been doing really makes sense before we just try to repeat the past.

Is it Curtains for the Seattle PI?

On Friday the New York Times reported that The Hearst Corporation was making offers to some PI reporters for a web only newspaper. As reported in the article:

"Hearst said in January that if it could not sell The Seattle Post-Intelligencer by this Tuesday, it would stop printing the paper and either shut it down or become a much smaller online publisher. No buyer has emerged, and an announcement is expected next week.
The Post-Intelligencer with a weekday circulation of more than 100,000, would be the first large American newspaper to stop printing but continue publishing on the Internet. A few smaller papers have already made that move.
This week, Hearst executives made offers to some people in The Post-Intelligencer newsroom, asking them to stay if the company decided to proceed with an Internet-based news service. ...."

The news was first reported by PI reporter Dan Richman in an article entitled "Some PI workers get online offer" Richman notes that some 20 people would be employed in the web based paper. This would leave a lot of others unemployed.

But some of the potential reporters with lots of free time are already proposing an alternative to being unemployed. Daily Kos has an article about an alternative cooperative proposal run by the reporters.

MSN news says that

"A group of Seattle Post-Intelligencer employees is seeking to raise $250,000 to start up an online local news site if Hearst Corp. decides to shut down the daily newspaper and not pursue an online-only site of its own.
The employees are setting up a nonprofit entity called the Seattle Post Globe. About 20 P-I staffers say they are prepared to work without pay until they can raise funds."

Termed " A Plan to keep journalism alive in Seattle: the Packer Model"; you can catch the details of their proposal at a website called Seattle Post - Post Intelligencer . Check it out.
The football team, the Green Bay Packers, is owned by the fans. The website of the reporters looking at starting the alternative newspaper on the web if the PI goes under and Hearst doesn't do an online edition of the PI, says:

"The idea here is that We are exploring the creation of a cooperative , which would be operated by combination of the site’s employees and the community."

Unless someone is lurking in the shadows with a bundle of money and community goodwill, things look to be drawing to a close for the Seattle PI as readers have known it for years as an independent spirited newspaper that has done much in its work to make Seattle a better community to live in. The current economy makes it's chances of surviving even less likely.

Let the Republicans Filibuster All They Want

The New York Times has an interesting opinion piece today by David E RePass. RePass is an Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the University of Connecticut.

RePass's opinion piece is entitled "Make my Filibuster" and his thesis is simple. Republicans have been repeatedly threatening to filibuster legislation essentially giving a minority veto power to 40 Senators. Yet actual filibusters he says are extremely rare. He says this threat of a filibuster is preventing government from functioning effectively and is really more appropriately called a "phantom filibuster."

RePass notes that:

"The phantom filibuster is clearly unconstitutional. The founders required a supermajority in only five situations: veto overrides and votes on treaties, constitutional amendments, convictions of impeached officials and expulsions of members of the House or Senate. The Constitution certainly does not call for a
supermajority before debate on any controversial measure can begin.

And fixing the problem would not require any change in Senate rules. The phantom filibuster could be done away with overnight by the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid. All he needs to do is call the minority’s bluff by bringing a challenged measure to the floor and letting the debate begin."

I strongly agree with DePass. He suggests that the Democrats would be politically astute if they called the Republicans bluff. Obama is enjoying much public good will, having inherited a disaster of an economy from the Republicans. The Republican mind set of a free market economy and little or no regulation and oversight brought on this current economic nightmare.

Voters clearly said it's time to change and Republicans still don't get it. Their answer to the problems is to continue the tried and failed Republican free market economy approach, rather than admit that they failed and brought us this mess. It is a Republican mess and if they want to filibuster Obama's proposals to try to fix the problem, let them go ahead.

Let them get on the Senate floor and oppose health care legislation and green jobs legislation and regulation for the financial industry and unemployment compensation for the unemployed and mortgage reform and help for homeowners losing their jobs and solutions to deal with climate change. That's what they've been doing for years.

But the public mood has changed. If they didn't get the message from last November's election of Obama and the loss of formerly Republican seats in the House and Senate, let them see how Americans feel about their trying to stop Congress and the President from working and doing their job by proposing and passing needed solutions to our current problems.

Americans are tried of naysayers and want our problems solved. Republicans botched the economy and Americans want them to get out of the way and let the President and Congress work to clean up the mess they created. They'll soon learn that the filibuster approach to solving problems is not one that going to earn them more votes in the next election. It's time for Reid and the Democrats in the US Senate to call the Republicans bluff on filibustering and move on to working out urgently needed solutions to our pressing problems.

Where's the Green Going in Seattle??

The Seattle City Council's passage last week of Council Bill 116404 – the Interim Tree Protection Ordinance is a small step that is long overdue. The bill closes a loophole the Seattle School District tried to use at Ingraham High School to stop further environmental review of their ill advised decision to build a new addition to the school in a grove of mature trees.

The new interim ordinance will limit to 3 per year the number of trees larger than 6 inches in diameter tthat can be cut down on undeveloped property and on single family property larger than 5000 square feet. The bill extends tree protection to groves of trees by adding them to a definition of exceptional trees.


The interim tree protection ordinance is and has to be viewed as a stop gap measure to give the Mayor and the Seattle City Council time to develop a truly comprehensive approach to protecting and preserving Seattle’s natural green habitat for plants and animals and the rest of us that live in Seattle.

The interim tree protection ordinance is not a comprehensive tree ordinance and only partially addresses the issue of trying to stop the senseless cutting down of trees and tree groves, by limiting tree cutting on lots prior to development. But an even bigger problem is that it did not address what happens during the permit approval process.

Once developers decide to build somewhere, saving trees is not a high priority of the city's Department of Planning and Development (DPD). In most cases trees always lose out to construction and development. The job of the DPD is to assist developers in their plans for construction and to gain approval for their projects. The interim tree ordinance still allows trees to be cut down during the development process, even if they are exceptional.

The Department of Planning and Development's current tree policy is guided by the Director's Rule 6-2001 on exceptional trees. The exceptional tree rule has a very limitied definition of exceptional that only applies to a small number of trees. . This policy, by Council staff’s own admittance, only potentially protects 1% of Seattle’s trees. That means 99% of Seattle's trees are not protected.

Even that percentage is questionable because right now any property owner proposing a construction project can cut down almost any tree, no matter how exceptional; all they have to do is say they can't build if they can't cut down the tree. This is what just happened in trying to save an old cedar called Big Red in the Ravenna neighborhood.

One trick they use, which DPD seems to buy off on, is that the developer can propose to plant new trees, maybe even 2 to 3 for each one they cut down. Planting two inch saplings while taking out 100 year old trees is not any kind of equivalence. It is a rip off of our urban forest.

The rules to be classified an exceptional tree are very restrictive. Very few trees actually qualify to even be considered exceptional under the DPD's decision process. For example, DPD's exceptional tree rules says Douglas fir trees have to be larger than 36 inches in diameter to be considered. Of the 72 trees the Seattle School District wants to cut down in a grove on the west side of Ingraham High School, the largest Douglas fir is 30 inches. The trees in the grove are 75 years old, 25 years older than the school, but none of the Douglas fir qualify as exceptional.

The Ingraham site also has Pacific madrone trees which are rare in the city and declining in numbers but at Ingraham they are labeled as not exceptional because they are not young. The DPD says young madrone trees may be protected. At Ingraham the School District has been moving the understory area and cutting down young trees shoots of madrone. So mismanagement of the habitat is being rewarded by the City.

Tamara Garrett of the DPD in reviewing the Ingraham High School Construction Project repeatedly described the cutting down of the 72 trees that are 75 years old and represent 100 foot tall Douglas fir, western red cedar and pacific madrone trees as “Several mature trees situated in the Northwest Grove have the potential to be affected by the proposed project.” And “conversely, members of the public opposed to the proposal mainly cited concerns about negative impacts associated with the removal of several mature trees on the site” and “The planned removal of several mature trees from the area of the site could negatively impact the survival of existing spawning, feeding or nesting areas of the birds.”

One has to wonder at what point DPD considers the removal of trees more than several. Would cutting down Seward Park or the trees at Green Lake also be nothing more than ‘the loss of a few trees?” The problem is that the DPD has given no consideration to the value of tree groves (read urban green habitat) as distinct from whether any tree in a grove is exceptional.

Taking 1% of our current 18% tree canopy means we could potentially save only .18% of Seattle’s tree canopy according to the DPD's Director's Rules on exceptional trees. Can you really call this any kind of tree protection measure? This is a gross misinterpretation of the SEPA laws of the City of Seattle.

From a habitat sense, birds are not avoiding the Ingraham grove because it doesn't have a 36 inch Douglas fir present. They are using the grove because it has many trees present, some 130 in all. And scientific studies show that the larger the grove, the greater the diversity of bird species. In an older grove of trees, like at Ingraham, vertical stratification also occurs as different species occur at different height levels of the tree canopy.

The Seattle City Council passed an ordinance last year asking the DPD to revise it's tree policy to reflect the intent of the SEPA provisions in the Seattle Municipal Code and give protection to tree groves. While the DPD has drafted a new interpretation it still has not approved it.

The guiding rule that DPD should be using for tree protection is SMC 25.05.675 (N). How does one go from the requirement to protect rare and uniques plant and animal habitat to only protecting .18% of the tree canopy in Seattle?

You do it by not giving any value to Seattle's urban green natural habitat. The City needs to take the environmental review out of DPD's hands and make it independent from those involved in approving construction permits. One way to do this is to move environmental review of construction projects to the Office of Sustainability and the Environment. That sounds like their job is to promote sustainability and the environment. The DPD's is not; it is to promote construction and development.

One other problem in trying to stop tree loss in the city of Seattle is that no one is tracking the trees being cut down. Current city law does not require anyone to get a permit to cut trees down, like many other cities do. DPD does not keep track of how many trees are cut down each month or year.

Seattle also has no tree inventory, so it truly does not know what it losing or gaining. The best estimate of the state of Seattle's urban forest status comes form the Urban Forestry Plan which estimated an 18% canopy cover city wide two years ago, down from 40% in 1973. Without a city wide inventory and tracking system and permits no one is keeping count of the trees being cut down. No one.

There is no tracking possible without a permit system of what we are losing. We need to require permits before trees can be cut down.

Environmental review of habitat and trees really needs to be moved out of DPD and done independently – like by the Office of Sustainability and the Environment. It is obvious that when DPD interprets protecting rare plant and animal habitat under SMC 25.05.675 (N) as only requiring protecting so called “exceptional trees”, that it gives no real protection to our natural green habitat or priority to basic ecological values within the city.

Such a limited narrow interpretation is a serious misreading of the Seattle Municipal Code and the intent of SEPA law. It hinders and prevents efforts to sustain and expand Seattle’s urban tree canopy. It is allowing the continued destruction of important plant and animal habitat.

Any new urban forest plan and tree protection ordinance needs to be based on sound urban forest management practices and basic ecological principles. The current system run by DPD is allowing the continued destruction of Seattle's green natural habitat and needs to be ended.