Global Weapons of Mass Pollution

By William J. Weissinger

Gordy Peterson's recent Column, WEAPONS OF MASS POLLUTION, tells it like it is: we here on the San Juan Islands are downstream of a spume of toxic pollution from Victoria. And we have every right to be concerned. But Victoria's complacency at the problems we are suffering is merely a mirror in which our own images reflect. The greenhouse gases that we of the United States (the biggest worldwide contributor per capita of greenhouse gases) spew into the atmosphere are themselves weapons of mass pollution. But rather than being limited to polluting Puget Sound – as is Victoria's pollution – greenhouse gases appear to be changing the climate of the world right now.

Skeptical about the dangers? Global warming is easy to pooh-pooh, because the cause-and-effect cycle is spread out over decades rather than hours or days. Genetically, humans are programmed to understand causes which have immediate effects: poke a sleeping lion with a sharp stick, or eat a poison berry, and (if you survive) you will quickly learn not to do that again. But we don't do so well when the negative consequences don't arrive for decades. And of course, the world's climate is complex: who is to say that current warming is part of a natural trend that would happen anyway?

In fact, most scientists acknowledge that we are now in the throes of global warming to which we humans are contributing. "In legitimate scientific circles, it is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming… [A] study of … more than nine hundred articles on climate change published in refereed journals between 1993 and 2003 … found that 75% endorsed the view that anthropogenic [that is, human-caused] emissions were responsible for at least some of the observed warming of the past fifty years. The remaining 25%, which dealt with questions of methodology or climate history, took no position on current conditions. Not a single article disputed the premise that anthropogenic [human-caused] warming is under way." "The Climate of Man – III", by Elizabeth Kolbert, The New Yorker, May 9, 2005.

And what are the predicted consequences? As summarized by Ms. Kolbert in her article, "Barely a month passes without a new finding on the dangers posed by rising C02 levels – to the polar ice cap, to the survival of the world's coral reefs, to the continued existence of low-lying nations." And of course, on a more local level, to the continued existence of many salmon runs, which depend on water flows from a winter snow pack that will no longer exist – and to the continued existence of the Orcas which rely in part on salmon for their existence. In addition, we have all read that global warming is forecast to create, not merely warmer weather, but more weather extremes.

Of course, it is possible to find opposing views. Witness for instance the fiction book State of Fear, by Michael Crichton. Not meaning to ruin the plot for you, the author invents a band of environmental extremist whackos who, amidst a whirl of murders and intrigue, plot to create artificial catastrophes which they can blame on global warming. The bad-guy extremists are headed off at the end by the "good guys" – the ones who now understand as "truth" this fiction book's premise that global warming and its predicted dire consequences are mere hype.

Although a fiction book, it comes across as more than that, since it has footnotes citing real studies, by which the author purports to present a "fair and balanced" explanation of the support [well, in Crichton's view the lack of support] for the premise that humans are causing worrisome levels of global warming. Reading the book is like listening to a trial where one side doesn't appear: even in the footnotes, you read only one side of the story.

In an Author's Message at the end of the book, Crichton suggests that "[b]efore making expensive policy decisions on the basis of climate models, I think it reasonable to require that those models predict future temperatures accurately for a period of ten years. Twenty would be better." He asks, in other words, for certainty. But seeking certainty is a fool's path.

Remember that nursery rhyme, "The House that Jack Built"? Imagine you're Jack, and you find you've built yourself a house on a thick vein of coal. So you put in a coal furnace. The coal being free, you chip away at it, and for a long time, you have no worries: you get free heat. But then one day, you've removed enough coal that you begin to wonder whether your house will be stable if you remove any more. So you hire an expert for an opinion: "If I remove any more coal, will I endanger my house?" What if the expert said "there is a five percent chance that if you remove another bucket of coal, your house will fall down" -- would you fill that bucket with coal anyway? What if the expert said the risk was ten percent? Twenty percent? Surely you wouldn't take a fifty percent risk? Would you require certainty? No way – long before you removed so much coal that removing any more would be certain to destroy your house, the increasing level of risk would have stopped you. Whether we're talking destruction of your house or the balance of the world's eco-system, the question isn't just the probability of the consequence, but also, how much will we hate it if it happens.

We have every right to be angry at Victoria for sending pollution our way. But we also have good reason to be concerned about the impact of our pollution on the world's climate. A global weapon of mass pollution indeed.


About the author: William Weissinger was graduated from the University of Chicago Law School in 1982, with honors. Since 1990 he has had a general law practice in the San Juan Islands, focusing on real estate and real-estate litigation, general business law, and estate planning. For more about the author, see sanjuanlaw.com.


[more..]

Why Do Some Nonprofits Stall In Their Vital Tasks?

Nonprofit Boards of Directors
By Steve Brandt

Nonprofits come in all sizes and shapes Mr. Brandt's SJ Islands Institute many do meaningful work that improves the quality of life in the community. Locally we have such organizations dedicated to a representative range of subjects ranging from mental health and low-cost housing to the performing arts, families, and preserving wildlife habitats.

Why do some nonprofits, including certain of our public taxing districts, stall in their vital tasks? One common reason is that they have ineffective boards of directors. Nonprofit boards are typically collections of friends and casual participants. Most directors mean well, I suspect, but in my experience they sometimes add little of value to completing the work at hand. When there is weakness at the top of an organization, one of two things happens. 1) The roost of the organization is ruled by the paid staff or a sub-group of directors that has a private agenda--and frequently a loud voice. Or 2) There is a power vacuum, the enterprise dithers, and its resources are squandered. Whichever outcome, instead of meeting a community need, the enterprise serves the interests of a select few, or no one at all.

Why do organizations have so-so boards? Two reasons, at least. One is because members and supporters (and tax-paying voters) seldom pay any attention to the director-election process. Unlike some corporate directors (since Enron) and many higher-profile elected officials, the qualifications and interests of nonprofit directors are typically un-scrutinized. Often they are simply appointed by friends already on the board. Or if there is a membership, it votes blindly for strangers duly nominated by the existing board. One organization in our county is spiraling into irrelevancy as this is written. The board is inert, very comfortable with itself, but inert. It regularly re-appoints itself, or clones of existing directors. And due to persuasive, often-evasive PR by the staff, the organization's supporters think (wrongly) that it is doing something appropriately productive with the thousands of dollars contributed in support each year.

A second reason for so-so boards is that members and supporters (and taxpayers) don't hold directors--past, present, or future--accountable for results. Almost by definition, nonprofits profess good intentions. Performance is another matter. So long as whatever goals are being pursued, if any, are kept fuzzy, accountability is very difficult. If a board doesn't say where it is heading, it can't be criticized for not getting there! And what's the risk to directors if "their" organizations don't produce? Virtually none. This is why many nonprofits are more like social clubs than purposeful organizations. The emphasis is on comfort, not discernable service. Our community is diminished when its nonprofits don't perform.

Neither of these two cultural reasons for so-so boards is likely to melt away. This means individual, rather than public, initiative is perhaps the only practical way to boost the impact of our local nonprofits. For an existing or potential director willing to take a stab at self-evaluation and/or improvement, here are three revealing questions she or he can ask. They bear directly on organizational effectiveness.

QUESTIONS:
1. Ambitions. Why am I willing to serve on the board? The, "I want to help," desire is necessary, of course, but insufficient. Everybody wants to help. But nonprofits exist in a competitive world just like for-profits. Nonprofits must hustle for funds, attention, staff, "customers," and so on. Can you (director or prospective director) make a specific contribution--raise money, attract staff, supply a needed skill--or are you willing to serve primarily to obtain an ego massage? One person I know was on the boards of three local organizations simultaneously, and her primary contribution was disruption in each case.

2. Balance of Power. Who is in charge? Most importantly: Does the paid (in most cases) executive manager work for the unpaid board, or vice versa? Some directors I know have been more than modestly surprised to find over the months that their input didn't count for much. Directors come and go; staff often stays. And if the staff picks most of the directors, you can be sure it stays, regardless of the performance of the organization, at least until the money runs out. Two organizations in our county are currently in financial difficulty because they have been woefully under-managed by their small staffs, which dominate their respective boards.

3. Integrity. Is the board honest? Every nonprofit has articles of incorporation and by-laws that spell out basic rules of conduct for the organization. These documents are required by law. When such rules are ignored, a major structural element is missing, regardless of how satisfied all the directors feel at the end of board meetings. Anarchy can prevail within an organization without any rioting or open conflict. There is one board in our county that has repeatedly refused to review/revise its by-laws even though most directors are aware that several by-laws are being flagrantly violated. And the membership hasn't a clue to what is going on.

Most nonprofits, including many junior taxing districts (e.g. libraries), depend on volunteers to some degree; such organizations are a special breed and they require enhanced managing skills. In the less effective nonprofits, ten percent of the people (including directors) do ninety percent of the work. There are some of these ten per-centers in our county. In more effective organizations around the U.S., e.g., the Girl Scouts, the Salvation Army, fifty percent or more of the primary participants make regular, useful contributions. Why are these nonprofits fifty per-centers? Because they are well managed. Such organizations have solid governance, missions that drive behavior, leadership that focuses on results, and performance that is monitored and discussed, for better or worse. These organizations attract and hold capable people at all levels, people who pitch in and make desired things happen. Such people take pride in tangible accomplishments, in making a difference. Warmth & fuzzies are not enough.
Copyright © by Steven C. Brandt

[more..]

On Emergency Ordinance For Guest Houses

By Stephanie Buffum Field

The San Juan Islands are among the most beautiful places in the world. For many of us who are fortunate to live in the islands, this natural beauty means numerous visits from friends and relatives, especially during the summer months. This in turn creates a need for guest accommodations, either as part of our homes or, particularly for the wealthier among us, in stand alone guest houses.

The purpose of guest houses is to accommodate our guests. Guest houses are not intended to be used as additional residential units or for profit vacation rentals or other commercial activities.

FRIENDS believes that growth is inevitable; however, the purpose of the Growth Management Act (GMA) is to prevent urban sprawl in rural and farm lands. The Growth Board found that unlimited detached guest houses are non-compliant with the Act because they double the density, and this was upheld in Superior Court.

The County's efforts to reverse its legal defeats over the past five years overshadow an important reality: there are already other options for most people who want to house guests. Internal guest house accommodations, attached guest houses, bunk houses, and detached guest houses where a second development right exists are all current legal options.

New guest houses may be permitted only if they do not result in an increase in allowable residential density. This means that they must be counted as residences ("dwelling units") for purposes of density calculations. (Guest accommodations that are an integral part of a residence are not subject to this policy.) New guest houses may be constructed wherever parcel sizes allow a second residence, without requirement for further land division, or on a separate legal lot (in each case subject to all other existing County regulations).

While the concern about mega-homes is a valid one, the arena to change this policy requires a legislative solution. Imposing limits on the ratio of building size to lot size is an approach taken elsewhere and one our County should be considering anyway to preserve the character of our islands.

We recommend the BOCC create a public policy on ADU's which applies the precautionary principle and reduces risks to our water resources; quality of life in our residential neighborhoods; and does not burden the tax payers with unknown costs for essential services made necessary when the capacity of our water, roads, ferries, court houses, health facilities have been exceeded without planning for long term housing.

In past five years, the BOCC has created a lose/lose for citizens of San Juan County by degrading our quality of life and wasting tax dollars on senseless litigation. Can you imagine what the County could have accomplished with all the staff and resources devoted to solving our growth and affordable housing issues, instead of spending our precious tax dollars on litigation?

The BOCC strongly favors both transient and long-term rentals of guest houses; this means converting residential property into commercial property --converting neighborhoods into motel districts. What is the fate of guest homes built today for "traditional guest uses" once the property is sold? In destination communities like Santa Fe, Aspen, Tahoe, Martha's Vineyard, the conversion of guest houses into transient or full time rental has been the path. San Juan County has the ability to look at these national housing trends and plan strategically for our future. Does our current political leadership possess the skill and political will to take on this noble task?

Tell the BOCC your concern over allowing accessory dwelling units in rural lands, including the shoreline in San Juan County. Let the BOCC know:

1) That you do not support the San Juan County BOCC attempt to modify the Growth Management Act to eliminate detached guest houses on rural lands from density calculations.

2) Removing the density constraint on detached guest houses will lead to exactly the kind of sprawl that the GMA was intended to control. With the highest rate of residential growth in the State, and already over 1500 guest houses, the need for constraints on sprawl in San Juan County has never been greater.

3) Any new, rentable guest-houses also compete with existing tourist businesses, who have a hard enough time to make any money during our short season, without the county government adding to their woes.

4) You favor neighborhood preservation and do not support the blanket transformation of neighborhoods into short term transient rental districts.

5) You want our BOCC to comply with State Law and stop wasting tax payer money to circumventing the law and start counting guest houses for density calculations.

THE GUEST HOUSE ISSUE IS ABOUT PROTECTING SAN JUAN COUNTY'S RURAL RESOURCE LANDS AND SHORELINES FROM SPRAWL!

[more..]