|(Three Sheets NW)|
In regards to the story by Deborah Bach, New bill makes it easier for big boats to visit Washington waters, a reader writes: “I can sympathize with those cash strapped 1%ers who can't afford a pilot to move their megayaghts. After all, who can afford $150 to go to the marina gas station when you are buying hundreds or thousands of gallons of fuel? Those pilots are overpaid anyway, and seriously, who really cares if a couple smaller craft get run over in the process, or a few drops of oil spilled from the occasional collision with submerged reefs? It’s actually their fault for being in the way. Now if we could just get the Corps to blast away the remaining rocky reefs, we wouldn't even need GPS and sonar to drive these rigs! Making those cocktails on the bridge so much sweeter.”
And, our reader continues, regarding orca scientist Ken Balcomb’s guest editorial about the death of L112 (Sooke), Bombing range or sanctuary? One in the same for endangered orcas, “Speaking of blasts, Ken Balcomb's comments are right on the money. Sounds like the Navy gets away with whatever it wants, as long as they don't have to produce real evidence. “
My comment: Like getting away with murder.
Regarding a guest editorial that wasn’t highlighted in the daily news clippings (WHATCOM VIEW: Infill meets Bellingham's goal of no development sprawl by Linda Twitchell of the Building Industry Association of Whatcom County), a reader wrote: “...the op-ed in the Bellingham Herald ... reminded me of a conversation that took place at a recent meeting of the PSP’s (Puget Sound Partnership’s) Ecosystem Coordination Board. Will Hall from Shoreline and Linda Berry-Maraist from Poulsbo (both local elected officials) were bemoaning the lack of environmental support for in-filling and made some very compelling arguments. Linda said “there’s 2 things people hate, density and sprawl” and it was right on. They called Tom Bancroft and Chris Davis to task for not doing more to get the environmental community to support good high density projects in urban and urbanizing areas. I think this is a really ripe topic for debate and will look for other articles on that point that might be worth sharing with your circles.”
Agreed. This is a very good point to discuss and reading Linda Twitchell’s piece is a good place to start. The Padden Creek development proposal is within the Bellingham city limits but neighbors don’t want the density. The city does not support expanding its urban growth boundary into an adjacent watershed. In the meantime, Whatcom County and cities are trying to work together on planning issues like urban growth areas and the annexation of them into city limits. (Whatcom council approves urban planning agreements with seven cities) Included in the agreement between the county and the city of Bellingham is a provision allowing for mitigating wetlands loss within the city by creating wetlands in the county. Activist Wendy Harris asked that the section be deleted: “Our goal should be urban infill, not infill at any cost.”
What might you have to say?