Archive for ‘Political commentary’

« Older Entries  |   Newer Entries »
November 5, 2008

I think I may have voted for an Edsel

by Steve Dana

The election is finally over and I can’t think of one person who isn’t happy that the campaigning has stopped.  The media people are probably a little disappointed since the money spent during the election season is like a retailer’s version of Christmas shopping seasons.  The amount of money spent was incredible.  Do you think there is a day after a political campaign where you can “take it back for a refund” if it didn’t turn out the way you wanted?  Wouldn’t that be interesting?  Losers get a refund. 

 

When you think about it, in the political world, the winner gets the refund.  If everyone does what they are supposed to do, the dollars invested in a political campaign will produce a return on investment. 

 

Keep in mind that I am not talking about the voters; I am talking about the campaign contributors.  If you look at the Public Disclosure Commission reports you can decide for yourself which people are expecting a return on their investment.  It is disappointing and alarming looking at some of them.

 

I don’t want to diminish the importance of the voters in all of this since you need them to complete the process, but there is so much going on in the campaign strategy rooms aimed at shaping voter thought processes.  Psychologically manipulating the way we think of the candidates leads us to choices that fit a particular profile.  Voters do have to “pull the lever” to make their choice after the marketing blitz but they are often led very carefully to that choice.

 

As a business person, it’s interesting listening to the strategy meetings in a political campaign.  You apply the same principles to selling cars or tooth paste as you do to politics.  The marketing people don’t care what the product is.

 

Think about the candidates you voted for.  Do you have specific expectations for them when they are sworn in or do you trust that the marketing spin somehow meets your needs?  Partisan politics is a process of negotiations where voters are not in a position of power.

 

Don’t be surprised if there is no connection between the campaign promises and the votes they cast after the first of the year.  The reality is that the real campaign promises were made behind closed doors and you can bet those promises will be honored.  They probably won’t be yours.

 

Voters don’t really have the stomach for the hard work it takes to keep elected officials feet to the fire.  They just want someone else to do it.  Partisan politicians count on that.

 

Don’t be surprised if we get what someone else paid for.

Posted in Political commentary, Snohomish County Political Commentary | Leave a Comment »

Tags:
November 3, 2008

Why in the world would anyone want that job?

by Steve Dana

The culmination of the election season this year leaves me with mixed feelings.  The voters appear to be on the verge of choosing a new leader with a different vision for the future.  In many areas I am fearful of how that vision will unfold in reality.

 

What we know about voters in general is that they can be very tolerant of a painful situation for a short period of time, but not at all tolerant over a prolonged period of time.  The past couple years now characterize the whole eight year record of George W. Bush.  The length of the war in Iraq goes beyond the ability of some young people to remember when there was peace.  George W. Bush represents the perception of many people today that Republican ideas have not worked.

 

Rhetoric in the election season is sharp as bad cheese.  Many folks think that no matter where we look, there is nothing good happening.  They would have us believe the country is falling apart and it is all George W. Bush’s fault; him and all those Republicans that supported him.  Listening to the commercials for the candidates in the Eighth Congressional District Reichert/Burner race, it’s hard to tell who is actually running for the seat.  Burner would have us believe that Bush is running.

 

I have been involved with government at the city level for twenty years.  I have served in a variety of capacities.  I started my “public service career” on the City of Snohomish Board of Adjustment in 1987.  I served with Phyllis Nowadnick and Max Weed to name a couple. 

 

After a couple years of that, I was full of myself and filed for a vacant city council seat.  Since I ended up running unopposed, I won that race by a landslide.  In January of 1990 I was sworn in for my first term.  Terry Filer was selected to be our mayor that year, but after only a year into the term, he suddenly resigned from the council and left town.  I was elected to fill out the remainder of his term as mayor.

 

It was about this time when councilmember Ann Averill came to the council with the announcement that negotiations to form a new county organization had been completed.  It would be a county-wide body representing the county and all the cities and would be made up of elected officials, technical staff, managers and citizens.  The mission of the group was to address issues related to unchecked “growth” in Snohomish County.  That was the beginning of Snohomish County Tomorrow.  It happened even before the State Legislature passed the Growth Management Act.  Leadership in our county was ahead of their time.  Give credit to Executive Willis Tucker and County Council member Brian Corcoran along with Everett city council member Bob Overstreet and many other elected officials with vision.

 

Councilmember Ann Averill was a founding member of that group but as the end of her term approached, she transitioned the assignment to me as the new mayor.  I served as the Snohomish member of the Steering Committee for five years.  The last three years, 1993 thru 1995, I served as Co-Vice Chair of the Executive Committee.  I worked with County Executive Bob Drewell and County Council members Liz McLaughlin and Karen Miller during those years along with Marysville Mayor, Dave Weiser.

 

The Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee had the responsibility of developing the first set of County-wide Planning Policies in a collaborative process with city and county representatives advocating for their respective issues.  It was a test of whether collectively we were committed to working out our problems together.  I assure you it was difficult at times.

 

After four years on the city council, I did face opposition, but was re-elected to a second term by a healthy margin.  Even though I won that election, I could tell the political wind was starting to shift.  The early years of “growth management” were tough because many in our city refused to acknowledge that change was coming.  The only real question was “how will it look in my town?” Some of our local “no-growthers” were committed to undermining the effort to comply with the state-wide process.  Adopting a comprehensive plan for our city that articulated a single vision for the future was painful.

 

For me personally, I look back on the eight years I served on the Snohomish City Council as the most rewarding period in my professional life.  I enjoyed learning about all the aspects of city government since ours was a fire department short of a full service city. 

 

In order to do the job in a full service city, council members need to have a working knowledge  of municipal utilities (both water and sewer) and other public works functions, fire service policy, police services and criminal justice functions from prosecution to incarceration, emergency management, labor negotiations with union bargaining units and budgeting for all of the above.  The volume of material to learn can be crushing.  For me, the decision to run for office made the commitment a “no brainer”.  I loved the challenge and the work.

 

What I didn’t love was the negative impacts to our restaurant business that resulted from contentious council decisions.  I took my commitment to the city seriously so I could not let the needs of my personal business shape my decisions when it came time to vote.  Had I considered the implications of my political stands to my personal ability to make a living, many times I should have voted different than I did.  Within my family, there were long discussions about how my council decisions could influence our customer’s decisions about eating in our restaurant.  In countless cases, we lost patrons because they were angry about positions I took on issues.  It is easy to understand why it is tough to get business people to run for city office.  Not many with retail businesses can afford to do it for long.

 

In my case, I decided to step down after eight years to help the business recover.  It was the right decision at that time.

 

Even though I left the council, I could not walk away completely.  After a couple years, I applied for a seat on the Planning Commission and have served there for another eight or nine years.

 

Readers of my blog can tell that I have strong feelings about how government works or more often than not, how it doesn’t work.  I have been critical of elected officials in my city on more than one occasion, I have rendered opinions about state and federal issues a time or two, but I have been most critical of our county elected officials.  I have sharply different ideas about how our county should be run.  I have written about many of those ideas in previous posts.

 

My old dad always said “If you think you can do better, get in the race.”  He pushed me to run for city council.  He also said “If you are going to complain about the ideas on the table, make sure you have ideas to offer as alternatives.”

 

I am at that point in my life again.  My father died last December 29th so he is not here to push me.  Within my personal circle, I am debating the merits of running for County Council in District 5.  I am looking for feedback from citizens to help me with the decision. 

 

I have enough experience in government to be productive immediately.  I am not an urban planner, but I have a very good working knowledge of the principles and the practice.  I have worked with police officers and administrators and understand the needs of criminal justice systems in our county.  I am a big advocate of smaller government.

 

I need to make a decision before the end of January.

 

What do you all think I should do? 

 

Feedback would be appreciated.

Posted in Political commentary, Snohomish County Council, Snohomish County Political Commentary | 2 Comments »

Tags: ,
October 27, 2008

Where is the Outrage?

by Steve Dana

Even though I am not thought of as an environmentalist, I am an advocate for farming.  In my mind, respect for the land as it relates to farming is a higher priority for me than a stand alone concern for the “environment”.  It comes down to balance.  Most people are generally concerned about the environment, but they are not fanatics.  The lack of meaningful science that most average citizens can understand makes us leery of often unsubstantiated claims.

 

I think that in spite of the fact that the interests of farmers are consistent with the environmental community in many ways, they also have significant differences.  Farmers have always been environmentalists.  Environmentalists are rarely farmers.  They are too idealistic to figure out how to make a living applying their own regulatory expectations to the real world.

 

My concern about agriculture in our community comes from living in a town with a rich farming heritage.  In the early years our city was a center for forestry related businesses; it was a processing and market place for farm products grown in and around the town.  Living in an agriculture community does not require that you be a farmer to appreciate the work they do.

 

For general purposes though, I grew up working on different farms from the time I was ten.  Most young people in my age group started our work lives picking strawberries or raspberries on the local farms.  I lived on a dairy farm for the summer in 1963 to learn about hard work.  My dad knew the lessons learned on a dairy farm would serve me throughout my life.  Walt and Alvina Hereth may have also learned some lessons about taking in a city kid as well.  Even today, I appreciate the experience working on their farm that summer.

 

Off and on for several years, I worked for farmers haying and doing other crappy jobs.  It was a good way for a kid to make a few bucks.

 

After high school, I went to work at the Seattle Snohomish Mill.  I had the privilege of working for “Old Bob” Waltz.  Even though my job was working in the mill, he allowed me to work on a couple occasions with forestry managers who needed a young guy who could lift a bunch and think at the same time.  Neal Bowman gave me a few lessons in the late sixties and early seventies that are still meaningful today.

 

A couple years later, I had the opportunity to work on a corporate farm in central Oregon.  Irrigation infrastructure creates an incredibly productive farming environment in that part of the world.  Yields compared to dry land farming are sometimes a factor of ten or more.  Technology on the farm made it possible to quantify what we did, how much we did it and when we did it.  I had the chance to learn about farming from professionals.  The lessons were not wasted.

 

Most recently, my brother bought an apple orchard in Yakima for his life after military retirement.  The learning curve for a venture like that is steep for everyone in the family.  Who knew about all the non-farming things you need to know to be a farmer?

 

I am not a farmer today and make no claims to be one.  I have done the work though and understand the satisfying feeling farmers get when they produce a crop or a tank of milk.  I sympathize with them when their task is made more difficult through regulations passed by government types who have not walked the furrows on a farm yet feel compelled to pile on.  I know the feeling of watching a wheat field be pummeled by a hail storm.  Farming is hard enough by itself without the additional load of government bureaucrats.

 

From a regional perspective, I am troubled as farmers I have known over the years have given up farming.  They cite a variety of reasons, but the bottom line is as each one disappears, we all lose.  Unlike the environmental community, I am more interested in preserving farms and farmers than I am “farm land”.  Without the farmers, the land is just land.  Working the land is what makes a farm.

 

In our county, the priority has been to save the farm land, but not the farmer.  That needs to change.  We need to rethink our priorities so that it is possible to make a living working the land again.  That might entail lobbying government at a higher level to change state and federal regulations.  This would the original “grass roots effort” to make a difference.

 

In our state, the Growth Management Act tells us that we must preserve farm land.  To that end, we are prevented from using agricultural land for recreation or open space purposes.  Apparently, it is not because of a desire to preserve open space.  Play fields for kids could be a great use for land if it cannot be farmed productively.  The state has been clear about the farm land preservation thing by repeatedly denying requests for regulations that would allow them.

 

So I finally get to the point of this story.  In spite of the fact that our state is vehement about preserving “prime” farm land, we are witnessing the state sponsored destruction of “prime” farm land in the name of the environment.

 

One example would be the Biringer Farm between Everett and Marysville.  There is little doubt that it has been very productive farm land, but the land is now owned by the Port of Everett and will be used as a wetland mitigation project.  In the near future, the Port will remove the drainage structures and the dikes to flood the “prime” farm land and turn it into a swamp.  I guess that tells us how important preserving the farm land is to our government officials.

 

Another example is the sale of hundreds if not thousands of acres of farm land between Monroe and Snohomish to the Nature Conservancy.  Their plan is to tear out the drainage infrastructure and the dikes to flood the “prime” farm land to make it a swamp that will serve as a nature habitat for ducks.

 

These are just two examples within ten miles of my city.  High minded nature lovers are destroying our “prime” farm land for their play fields.  Isn’t that hypocritical at the minimum?  It really makes me wonder about the motives of our elected officials.  What is their agenda?

 

I hear what they are saying with their words, it just doesn’t match up with their deeds.  I feel a change in the winds.

Posted in Environmental, Political commentary, Snohomish County Political Commentary | 2 Comments »

Tags: , ,
October 20, 2008

University of Washington – MARYSVILLE

by Steve Dana

It has been a while since we heard anything about the effort to site the University of Washington branch campus in Snohomish County.  I have always been an advocate of working on controversial issues when the heat is focused somewhere else.  I hope the decision makers are as well.

 

Since I have been a strong advocate for the Marysville site, I look at the process they used to make the selection and am still perplexed that they could choose Everett Station.  I was not invited to participate when they did the initial go-round so they are not really interested in what I think.  That has never been a deterrent to me offering my opinion anyway.

 

If you read the Revised Code of Washington RCW 28B.50.020 Sec. 7, you see that Community Colleges are supposed to be independent institutions, not a part of any other educational institution.  At the same time, you can go to the UW Bothell campus and find that Cascadia Community College shares the site with the Branch campus.  Other community colleges in our area also offer undergraduate degrees through branch affiliations with Western and Central Washington State Universities.

 

I am not trying to undermine the mission of the Everett Community College, but the only way I could imagine siting the UW Snohomish County in Everett would be if it piggy backed on the ECC campus.  If you look at the size of the ECC campus, you can understand why the Everett Station site is totally unsuited for the needs of the new university.

 

The argument I hear in favor of Everett over Marysville is the proximity to transit in Everett.  I do think the new train station is much better than the old one, but I don’t think of the train will be a significant factor in bringing students to the campus from the target market to the north.  Regardless of what the politicians say, the students that will attend this university will take busses or drive in their cars from their homes and jobs in northern Snohomish and Skagit County.  Certainly there will be a draw from the south if the focus of the school is of a technical nature, but with a UW in Bothell, putting one in Everett doesn’t make much sense.

 

I know a University branch campus is not a high school, but today’s standards for new high schools recommends that a high school be a minimum of five acres plus one additional acre for each 100 students.  So a high school with a student population of 2000 would require a minimum of 25 acres.  I would imagine that a branch campus for a university would use similar criteria to establish size requirements.  I would also imagine that a branch campus would expect a student population of more than 2000 so the site should be large enough to accommodate growth.  Maybe a long term enrollment of 10,000 students would require a site of 100 acres or more.  If the campus was to include student housing, the number of acres would increase significantly.  The point of this thought is to demonstrate that the Everett site is hardly suitable for minimum enrollment let alone the thousands we all expect.

 

If the process for siting UW Snohomish County has a site-size criteria, Everett loses every time.

 

If you consider the general area around the university that will develop in conjunction with the school, Marysville has many more possibilities.

 

In spite of the fact that the analysis suggests almost any site is better than Everett, shoe-horning the UW Snohomish County into a tiny site on the wrong side of the tracks in Everett is a distinct possibility since politicians are involved and that changes everything.  Spending a fortune on the wrong thing would be no surprise since it is just public money and everyone knows we all have more than we can handle.

 

This whole Everett infatuation thing reminds me of a parent with an unattractive child describing how beautiful their baby is.

Posted in Political commentary, Snohomish County Political Commentary | 2 Comments »

Tags: ,
« Older Entries  |   Newer Entries »