Island Guardian

Thursday, September 22nd

Corporations Find That Religion Helps Sales

Just like Eve, suddenly aware and exposed in the Garden of Eden, today nothing covers the nakedness of corporate self-interest like the fig leaf of environmentalism. The green movement is insidious. It permeates our society up to the corporate levels. Environmentalism is no longer science. It even goes beyond politics. It has transformed into a religion. What evidence do I have to make this claim?

The evidence hit me smack dab in the middle of my morning shower. I was visiting the coast at a seaside resort. There was a soap dispenser on the shower stall that you could poke and it squirted out a variety of gelatinous substances like soap, shampoo, mystery conditioner, and some kind of lotion. I felt like a laboratory rat hitting the feeder bar to get a food pellet. On the top of the dispenser I read, "To our valued guests, thank you for using this dispenser, thus helping to reduce the amount of packaging that is used and discarded. Planet EVERgreen is the official environmental ‘greening' program" of our resort corporation. So, there I stand soaking wet getting a sermon by corporate America about how to save the planet. And that was not the last of the lectures I would receive.

I reached for a towel. I found a sign hanging from the towel rack. It said, "A towel on the rack means I will use it again. A towel on the floor means please replace it. Together we can save millions of gallons of water. Together we can make our planet EVERgreen!" I know we are in the Evergreen State, but I guess these guys don't know that the Washington coast is one of the wettest places on planet EVERgreen! Water is the last thing they need to save here. Anyway, I am still wet and getting cold.

I must choose. Do I use the washcloth instead of the big bath towel? Would that be better for the planet? Will the wrong choice really destroy planet EVERgreen? What the heck. I throw one towel down and step on it because the floor is so sandy (probably because the maid is trying to save the planet also so she doesn't mop the floor) and I use the other bath towel to dry off with. I only hope it is clean and that the guy before didn't just hang a dirty towel back on the rack out of some sort of environmental guilt-trip. So I made a heaping pile of towels on the floor. Hoo boy! There goes the planet!

Now I happen to know that little bars of soap cost more because people steal them (you know who you are). They get thrown away and wasted after one use. I also know that housekeeping labor is expensive and good help is hard to come by. It costs more in labor to wash every towel. So if you are a friend of the planet and reuse one stinking towel you will save water and money for the resort while thinking you are saving the planet. That's nice. However, the little sign should be revised to reflect reality not some greener than thou dogma concocted for the benefit of the environmental faithful.

It should say something like this, " Together we can save millions of dollars in materials and labor costs if you use the towels over and over again and don't mind if they are damp and smell like mildew. You can help our company make a huge profit if you use the poke and squirt dispenser thingamabobs instead of little tiny bars of soap and miniature bottles of shampoo that everyone steals (you know who you are). Or, if you would just pay us for the room and enjoy the view for a while, then leave, it would greatly enhance our profits (The planet will be fine either way). You can also help if you cooperate with our security staff as they search your bags when you leave for those concealed towels and bathrobes and hangars and stuff." That's what it would say if the management were honest.

Instead we get this hypocritical sanctimonious crap-ola about saving the planet. The message is shouted out from every direction. At restaurants for example it is common to read something like this, "Our mission is to operate with a deep sense of love and respect for the planet. So whenever possible we use farm products are made from sustainable organic grass-fed, free range, hormone free, (free everything except it costs a lot). Our menu is printed on recycled paper with soy ink" (sounds good but I'm not going to eat the menu, thanks).

Everywhere you go you can find companies boasting about how green they are. We comply with "Best Earth Practices" so our operation is good for the planet. We pay "sustainable living wages". Our corporation is greener than yours. Global warming from exhaust fumes can be avoided if you convert your vehicle to run on our brand of bio-diesel fuel (composed of melted down old tires, banana peels, and old French-fry cooking oil). The message is, buy our stuff or die from sudden catastrophic environmental destruction.

When environmentalism permeates the corporate world like this, then you know it has become a religion. A certain kind of orthodoxy is demanded in consumer behavior. You will buy this or something is wrong with you. You don't want to destroy the planet do you? Well, do ya punk?

Let me break this idea of "environmentalism as religion" down for you to help you understand it. At some point back in some romantic vision of human history, man and nature were living together in harmony. I think it was during the time of the Indians. Along came red-necked white men with pick-up trucks called "cowboys" and there was a fall from grace. When they finished a can of beer they shot the heck out of it for target practice introducing lead into the food chain and causing what we now know as litter. So we sinned and fell out of harmony with nature. We needed to have someone come and straighten us out. So, like Mighty Mouse ("Here I come to save the day!"), Corporate America brings us salvation with "sustainable planet saving" products and concepts.

How did this religion get started? During the sixties while passing a bong and listening to the hit song, "Eve of Destruction", a bunch of hippies figured out how to save the world from certain Armageddon-like destruction. They would be the high priests (literally) and preach the gospel of environmentalism! They would even create a religious holiday called Earth Day where people could meditate and contemplate the universe, as it could be with man and nature in perfect harmony. (Coca-cola was the first corporation to pick up on this theme but the commercial had nothing to do with soda pop). Some of these guys infiltrated the corporate world. These green crusaders would make people change their polluting behavior and show sorrow for their sins, like recycling cans instead of shooting the crap out of them. Some would eventually drive hybrid cars with bumper stickers that said "America Sucks"!

So to review the green doctrine, first you have man in harmony with nature, the fall (remember the Indian shedding crocodile tears because of litter), man headed for certain destruction in a future judgment day (global warming, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc.). Then comes the bong puffing greener than thou environmental missionaries disguised as college professors laying all the worlds guilt for pollution on America. They convert the masses of young people who confess that our nation has sinned and polluted the planet so they find salvation in the First Sustainable Church of Mother Earth. We all do our penance (recycling, reusing old stuff including towels). We take communion with organic hormone-free sustainable foods. And finally we are redeemed from our rowdy highfalutin big pollutin' ways by being forced by the resort companies to use poke and squirt dispensers while made to feel incredibly guilty when we dry off with big wasteful planet destroying bath towels.

As you can see Environmentalism has many parallels with religion. They share the same myths. It takes a leap of faith to believe in this stuff. Like religious zealots, no amount of evidence or facts can change the minds of the true believers. And it took a sign on the soap dispenser for me to finally see it clearly. I hope this helps you see it too.

[more..]

Monday, September 19th

Affordable Housing: Why does it cost so much?

Islanders are suffering a "growth crisis" and a "housing crisis" and the Bush Administration does nothing! But seriously, why does housing in the San Juan's cost so much? Here's why.

Every new tax diminishes the possibility of affordable housing. Every new regulation on land use erodes the chances for affordable housing. Strict building codes have become a major barrier to affordable housing.

Ironically, advocates for more taxes and regulation in our county are the same people who are demanding that the rest of us pay for subsidized housing by instituting a new Housing Bank tax. After creating the problem with well-intended government solutions to the growth crisis the same people are demanding we do something about the housing crisis before it's too late. It may be too late already.

We know higher taxes make it difficult for many people to live here but we keep raising them anyway. The majority of voters seem oblivious to the connection between taxes and affordable housing. Our County Commissioners continue their reckless spending forcing taxes skyward. We have a conservation tax, recreation tax, school tax, hospital tax, land bank tax, etc. Now a new Housing Bank tax is being proposed. Some argue that these taxes are essential but at some point long-time residents can't afford them. They are forced to sell out to new people who pay high prices for the property. If the Housing Bank goes forward these new people will pay even more. This inflates home prices intensifying the unaffordable housing crisis.

The "law of supply and demand" is a significant factor in higher housing costs. New regulations and "feel good" programs have helped create a situation where demand has exceeded supply. Fear of growth produced the down zoning that recently took over 15,000 potential parcels off the map. If the supply of buildable land is restricted in the face of growing demand the price will go up. The Land Bank and other programs that take buildable parcels out of the inventory and extinguish development rights on other parcels adds significantly to the price of the remaining available land. The artificial scarcity of buildable land under such programs drives up land prices and thus drives up housing prices.

The complexity of processing a permit has significantly increased the cost just to apply for one. Regulations on land that slopes or contains a wetland or is near water require engineering and environmental studies that can be very expensive. The cost of compliance and permits for designing and building septic systems have dramatically increased in the last 10 years. Water availability permits and the cost of drilling and registering a new well has increased considerably because of regulation. Many of these restrictions on new development were put in place to discourage growth. Instead these restrictions fundamentally changed who could afford to live here and who could not.

Delays and uncertainty in permitting also add to the costs for construction. Applicants are forced to pay interest on construction loans when permits are delayed. Restrictive building codes add time to construction and increase costs. Loss of contractors who can't wait for permits to be processed further compounds the problem. After years of wrangling over the Comprehensive Plan in order to streamline permitting, the process remains slow, expensive and uncertain. (Don't even think of building a guesthouse!)

Interestingly, advocates of the Housing Bank proposal are counting on favorable treatment by the County. They anticipate leniency in zoning requirements and in other areas. They need to increase density beyond what exists in order to build more homes for less money. They also know for a fact that it would cost less if they could avoid some of the more expensive studies and regulations that everyone else must pay when they build a house. The rest of us get no special treatment. That is another reason why our homes cost more.

The Housing Bank supporters think that they are only taxing new people. Here is what their literature says about that, "The best solution, in our view, is a real estate excise tax, levied on the purchaser of homes. There is some justification for this approach since it is levied on the new purchasers that are creating the inflated housing prices in the first place". (See above. Taxes are actually the root cause of that).

Tax the new people? This idea is so naïve. The proposal for a Housing Bank will be mean a new tax for every islander. It creates even more bureaucracy adding new administration and staff. The Executive Director is expected to be a paid County staff member. Other County staff and resources will necessarily be required. These are direct costs to the taxpayers.

Not only are we expected to pay the taxes required to subsidize housing we will also pick up the tab for additional property taxes on the Housing Bank land that becomes tax-exempt the day after the county purchases it. If San Juan County owns this land then those taxes will shift to existing residents.

They already anticipate more debt. According to their proposal the county commission will issue more tax-exempt bonds to pay for land purchases. With the approval of the BOCC this organization expects to "act as an agent of the government in making spending decisions". Hold on to your wallets!

Let's not forget that new residents who inhabit subsidized homes will create increased demand for county services and will not pay any property taxes, while another class of new people would be taxed just for buying property. Many of the rest of us will be thinking about selling out for a high price because our taxes outpace our income. It seems to be a vicious circle.

Now, having made housing unaffordable for many citizens, this well-intentioned group of Housing Bank advocates wants to use government, at taxpayers expense, to provide a relative handful of people with housing that is almost as affordable as it would be if the government had left things alone. Fewer taxes and less regulation are proven solutions. Let's not loose sight of that fact. A new tax is not the answer to affordable housing. Another government program is not the solution either.

[more..]

Sunday, September 4th

Gas Tax Litigation: Why are we doing this?

I just paid $3.28.9 per gallon to gas up my truck. These are tough times to hit people with a new gas tax. But our State Legislators did it anyway. They have made people so mad that the tax may be repealed by initiative 912 (No New Gas Tax).

Polls show that the public has little sympathy for a bunch of big spending Seattle area politicians and their powerful corporate donors who want to raise gas taxes to pay for their pet projects. This group of powerbrokers tried to cut the legs out from under the grass roots supporters of Initiative 912 by filing a lawsuit to stop them. So whom did these big shots use to do their dirty work? Why San Juan County of course!

Our County was duped into filing the lawsuit. It is my belief that San Juan County has no logical reason for bringing this lawsuit and that the negative publicity and cost to the taxpayers far outweighs any benefits. I also believe that the litigation is politically motivated and not, as some say, only about enforcing public disclosure laws.

Here is the background and an update on the latest developments. The initial lawsuit filed by San Juan County claimed that KVI talk radio was raising money and speaking out in favor of the No New Gas Tax campaign during their broadcasts. Their alleged offense was not reporting these activities as "in kind" contributions to the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC). The broadcasting company has since complied by disclosing their contributions to the campaign. So that should be the end of it right? Not exactly.

If San Juan County's lawsuit were only about enforcing the disclosure requirements it would be over now. Instead No New Gas Tax has filed a civil rights lawsuit against San Juan County, and the cities of Kent and Seattle. They claim that the Prosecutor's lawsuit was an attempt to use the power of government to regulate free political speech.

In most places around the islands we can't even get reception on KVI radio but our Prosecuting Attorney, Randy Gaylord, with permission from the BOCC, has gotten us into a jam that could cost the taxpayers dearly in legal fees and will distract from the heavy workload already in the Prosecutor's office (something to remember at budget time).

When I first talked to Randy about the initial lawsuit he said, "It will take less that 10 hours of our time to deal with it". After the counter claim was filed he revised that projection by saying, "Yes, it will cost more now." I agree. It will cost a good deal more.

I think spending even one nickel of the taxpayer's money on this suit is wrong. We don't know how much it will eventually cost. Appeals are likely because constitutional issues are at stake. This could become a protracted legal battle. The BOCC should have taken into account the long-term nature and costs of a fight we have no business being in and been honest about their reasons for it.

When asked why he began this suit in the first place Randy grew noticeably uncomfortable and said, "You should go ask the Commissioners. I am just their attorney."

I Did. I could find no evidence that the lawsuit originated with the Commissioners. Further, in a conversation with Commissioner Ranker, it was clear he thought it was all about transportation budget issues.

I also asked Randy if he was surprised by the Civil Rights counterclaim. " Yes, we were surprised. But you can never underestimate the ingenuity of the opposing council".

The reasons we got involved do not make sense to me. The unpopular tax increase is the start of an $8.5 billion transportation program for big "down sound" projects like the Alaskan Way Viaduct, the Lake Washington floating bridges, construction of big ugly noise-reducing walls on I-5, various road improvements, and mass transit. So what does San Juan County get for leading the charge in this lawsuit?

According to the DOT website no transportation projects are proposed for San Juan County. However, if the gas tax is repealed, low priority items that may affect San Juan County could be eliminated. One example of this is the promised Inter-modal traffic study for Friday Harbor. This was one reason why Commissioner Ranker voted to authorize the lawsuit. (Do we really need a $250K study to find out why it takes traffic so long to get up Spring Street?)

In a telephone conversation I had with Randy Gaylord about the civil rights lawsuit on 8/12 he stated: "I think this is nothing more than a publicity stunt. We did not even receive the documents until late on that day (8/9). They served the media before us. I thought it was over when we got their disclosure. All we were after was to get them to admit their contributions to the campaign." Is Randy just a stickler for the public disclosure laws or was the lawsuit by San Juan County politically motivated?

The No Gas Tax defendants claim that it was. They say, "In this case, prosecutors are, quite simply, using campaign finance laws to strike a blow at the heart of free speech".

Randy Gaylord claims that, "The lawsuit we brought was to enforce the public disclosure laws."

It would seem that if this were all about violation of public disclosure laws the Prosecutors would just refer the offending talk show hosts to the Public Disclosure Commission. After all that is why the PDC exists. At least one of our County Commissioners does not recall this option even being discussed before they voted to authorize the lawsuit.

The Prosecutors could not wait for the PDC to act so they took the law into their own hands. They insist that there was not enough time for the PDC to resolve the matter. San Juan County had to intervene and do something that has never been done before. They went around the PDC to get KVI to play by the rules and change the way they were talking about the campaign on the air. Why would they panic unless they were trying to stop the campaign in its tracks? In this case talk radio was simply too effective.

If this was all about playing by the rules and not politically motivated then how do we make sense of Randy's statement in his initial press release?

"As a county, we have a lot at stake. We depend on a healthy transportation network, and the transportation package is a fair way to pay for it."

Whether you agree with the statement or not, it is obviously not about disclosure rules. It is a political statement in favor of the tax increase.

The public also thought the suit was politically motivated. In this case they clearly saw through this smokescreen to silence the talk show hosts and signed the petitions in droves. In fact, observers of the process said that the lawsuit created a groundswell of support and motivation for the petition drive. So being a stickler about the rules backfired. It had the opposite effect because it was not the only reason for this action and people knew it.

If the PDC can't do their jobs then change may be required in that department. But why drag San Juan County in to do the PDC's job? Perhaps the real reason it was done was to stop the campaign to repeal the gas tax.

The Seattle firm of Foster Pepper & Shefelman is doing most of the legal work for SJC. Their name appears on all the legal documents filed in this case.

The No Gas Tax campaign is represented by attorneys at the Institute for Justice, Washington Chapter (IJ-WA). They believe that the opposing council, Foster Pepper, has a political as well as a financial motivation in this case.

In a recent phone interview with Bill Maurer of IJ-WA he said the law firm has a "substantial self-interest" in the suit's outcome "because as an active opponent of the campaign against the initiative, they stand to gain financially if the initiative campaign is preoccupied and ultimately defeated." The suit claims that this is a violation of due process.

The Institute for Justice found some interesting documents regarding Foster Pepper. For example they are a member and big contributor to Keep Washington Rolling (KWR), the committee opposed to I-912.

It is interesting to note that the press release announcing the lawsuit did not come from the San Juan County Prosecutors office but from KWR (6/22/05) ( LINK )

The firm is also listed as bond counsel for Washington State. IJ-WA claims that if the gas tax is repealed, there is no revenue and no bonds to issue and therefore fewer potential fees for Foster Pepper. They see this as a conflict of interest and evidence of political motivation. (LINK )

Is it all about the PDC rules? Not according to the evidence. The reasons we got into this fight are not valid. The costs are not worth it. The city of Auburn pulled out of the lawsuit. We should too. It is simply not our fight.

I admit that I have been a supporter of Randy for years. He has done heroic work for our County taking on the jet-ski industry and the GMA hearings board. But the reason for taking on this particular case is baffling to me. It seems to be a tremendous waste of the Prosecutor's time and energy in a department that is always complaining about being short-handed and under funded. Perhaps someday we will know the rest of the story.

_
See at DOT website

[more..]