Archive for ‘Snohomish County Political Commentary’

June 26, 2009

Will the Real Dave Somers Please Stand Up!

by Steve Dana

In the February 18 edition of the Snohomish Tribune, they reported that incumbent Somers’ top three priorities if he wins re-election were 1) Retaining Jobs in the today’s economy, 2) Ensuring that “Transportation Money” comes to Snohomish County from the Federal Stimulus program and 3) Protecting farmland and Agriculture industry.

The part where he says, “If he wins re-election” is important. At the time he shared his priorities, Somers knew he had applied for a different job with the federal government and was hoping to keep it quiet. How do you tell folks in your district you are running for re-election when you are looking for a different job? How do you go to your supporters to raise money for a campaign when you are deceiving them by not disclosing your real plan? If that other thing didn’t pan out, then he would fall back to Snohomish County Council. That says something about Dave.

Then regarding his priorities, I would think that retaining jobs would be a high priority for every elected official. I would think that creating family wage jobs in our county would be very high on the list. I would think that supporting businesses that create those jobs would be a great idea. In Somers’ case, he’s already spent eight years in office and I can’t see how he’s done anything to support business. If you don’t support the business community, how do you expect to retain jobs? Unless you intend to create government jobs, you need profitable businesses to “retain jobs” or to create jobs.

Priority number two is “Ensuring that Transportation Money comes to Snohomish County from Federal Stimulus program”. What kind of priority is that? If there aren’t real priorities for our county he can enumerate, he is in real trouble. Getting in line at the trough is not my idea of good government.

Dave’s third priority was protecting farmland and the Agriculture industry. Protecting them from what? The greatest threat to farm businesses is government regulation. The environmental policies promoted by Somers and his associates are killing farm businesses. The “farm land” will be left, but there won’t be any farmers.

From Dave’s Website http://davesomers.org/index.php?page=display&id=4
“Four years ago, I campaigned to get our fair share of transportation investments, protect local businesses, neighborhoods and farms, and improve public safety.”

On Dave’s campaign website today, his priorities are to secure funding for improvements to state and federal highways (US2, SR9 & SR522). These are state and federal highways and funding for them comes from either the state or feds. He must have some evidence that he worked on this priority somewhere in his past, but I can’t find it; unless you count hand wringing.

From Dave’s Website http://davesomers.org/index.php?page=display&id=4
Our priority for 2009 and beyond should be to assure the stability of our economy by providing a favorable business climate for our existing businesses, and to attract new businesses that will put Snohomish County in a world leadership position for the new economy.

Once again, there is no evidence that Somers supported any significant business initiatives during the past 3½ years. He certainly didn’t initiate any. For the future, his idea of attracting new business for the new economy is generally related to the Green Economy. That would mean that if you are an existing business, you might be at risk.

Dave also suggests ways to support the economy.

From Dave’s website http://davesomers.org/index.php?page=display&id=4
1. Working hard to improve our region’s transportation systems including highways, transit systems, regional connections, and local road system;
2. Maintaining our quality of life including natural environment, business climate, education system, and safe communities;
3. Establishing a four year University in Snohomish County;
4. Continuing to make County government more efficient and responsive.

I would like to hear Dave’s ideas about improving the regional transportation system. I suspect he would be recommending ways to get us out of our cars. A Green Initiative goal is a 20% reduction in vehicle miles traveled by county residents by 2015; based upon 2005 as a base. Imagine how your life would change if you had to reduce the miles you travel because the government decided you drive too much? What alternatives has Dave offered that will make it possible for us to drive less?

Whether you like it or not, that is where Somers is leading us. The best way to get you out of your car is to penalize you through taxes or fees. His leadership will hurt if you live in east Snohomish County and drive your car.

His point number 4 “Continuing to make County government more efficient and responsive.” suggests that he has been working on it already. Other than balancing the budget through employee cuts he hasn’t initiated any efforts to be either more efficient or responsive.

We need to keep the heat on Somers for his failure to accomplish any of these goals after all his years on the job. Aside from his environmental regulations, it would be easier to list Dave’s accomplishments after eight years on the job than his failures. The list of accomplishments would be really short and the failures list would be lengthy.

Where I do believe you can count on Somers to deliver will be in his goals for the Environment.

From Dave’s website http://davesomers.org/index.php?page=display&id=4
1. Continuing to work to restore Puget Sound and our region’s salmon runs;
2. Preventing sprawl, increasing protection of farm lands and forest lands;
3. Creating new opportunities for sustainable economic development.

Now we are talking about the real Dave Somers. This is his agenda. Here is where you will find his contribution to County government. In the context of Goals and Policies, Dave has been very effective in producing an impact. In order to think that Dave offers a balanced approach to environmental policy, a person would have to be an ultra eco-extremist. The ramifications of promoting this little section of Somers’ agenda ripple through every one of his others.

The last section of Somers’ goals for his campaign he lists Public Safety. Public Safety consumes about two thirds of the county general fund budget. The Sheriff, the jail, the prosecutor’s office, the Clerk and the courts already consume two thirds. Dave would have us believe that he is involved with public safety issues in the district. The Sheriff knew about the increasing gang activity that lead to a homicide in Sultan but Somers must have missed that one.

In addition to existing Criminal Justice offices, Dave wants to dedicate additional funds for “alternative programs and mental health” at the expense of what? Where does Dave plan for these funds to come from? Rather than adding obligations to the county burden, we need to be reducing them.

From Dave’s website http://davesomers.org/index.php?page=display&id=4
• Continuing to work on making our County’s Public Safety system more effective and efficient;
• Support funding for alternative programs such as drug court;
• Reducing public safety costs by treating the root causes of much of our crime – mental health and drug related.

There is no doubt that Dave Somers wants to lead his district, but I know I don’t want to follow where he is taking us and I doubt many others will either when they realize where that is. If you look at Somers’ issues on his website, they are at a minimum listed in reverse order and that is giving him the benefit of the doubt. I seriously doubt whether Transportation or the Economy are high priorities for his next term since they have not been in the past.

Ask Dave Somers to list his accomplishments that can be substantiated with a “yes” vote on an issue. Ask Dave Somers when he had his last Town Hall Meeting with constituents. Ask Dave Somers what his proudest achievements have been in government.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the answers were short; not because he hasn’t been doing anything, but because his achievements do not serve the average citizen in the district. If the average citizen knew how Dave and others in his camp conspiring to change their lives, the people would be alarmed.

As a challenger I can question Somers’ accomplishments or lack of them. As the incumbent he can question my ability to do better. Since I am considerably more experienced in government than he was when he was elected I think I can offer credible answers to his challenges. Voters are entitled to know about incumbents; their voting record and their agenda for the future.

As a candidate for county council, I can offer a solid twenty plus year history of moderate government where I have the same expectations for the development community as I do for the environmental community; solid science to establish fair guidelines for both sides.

June 7, 2009

In Politics, Cash is King. Show me the Money!

by Steve Dana

The field has suddenly gotten crowded in our county council race. Current Lake Stevens mayor, Vern Little filed to run against Somers and me then former Independent candidate Greg Stephens also filed. Stephens was the guy that got into the race with Somers and Sax and drew enough votes away from Sax that Somers could win. Stephens now prefers Republican to Independent. We now have three Republicans and one Democrat. I’m not sure what Jerry Cornfield meant a couple months ago when he asked whether I was the best the Republican Party could muster. Cornfield must have been referring to Vern and/or Greg as the better candidates. Which Republicans was he referring to anyway?

The up-side of this development is that we can get a handle on our weaknesses and our strengths at a point in the campaign where we can re-tool for the general or be out of the race without spending the fortune it will take to compete in November.

I suspect that Vern will get a big infusion of cash to jump start his campaign. The interests that question my viability will buy Vern whatever advantage they can. We all know that in politics, cash is king. I will continue to march with my campaign at the grass roots. How many times have you heard of a Republican doing a grass roots campaign?

I was advised this morning by a prominent Republican that even if he pitched in with my campaign I would still be beaten by ten percentage points because I had no money, I had no base and I had no experience in partisan politics. I must be one really bad candidate. He did say that I was a nice guy. He also conceded that if I were elected I would do a great job, but I guess that doesn’t count for much.

That same prominent Republican recently sponsored a fund raiser for Somers, the Democrat. I guess he is covering his bases. You do have to wonder what is going on when prominent Republicans are raising money for Dave. It makes me speculate about the quid pro quo. What did Somers have to give to get these guys to sponsor a fund raiser for him? Wasn’t there something out there about making a deal with the devil?

Even though I didn’t like to hear it, that Republican was right when he said I had no money and I had no partisan political experience. He was not right when he said I had no base. My base is huge; it’s just difficult to get them motivated. My challenge between now and August 1 is to get my message out to the voters without a big pot of cash. That is where you all fit in. You didn’t realize this blog was interactive. I can raise fifty thousand dollars by motivating sixty guys to give $800 each or five hundred guys to give $100. Oh, all right, I will take fifty bucks from a thousand guys. But I need your help lining up those thousand guys. You know what they say; a journey of a thousand contributions begins with a single check.

After I finish first or second in the primary, my electability should change.

In the mean time, feel free to throw money at my campaign. And encourage all your friends to do the same. These days everything is about networking. Sharing my message with as many people as you can would help immeasurably.

The political wizard said I can’t win if I don’t motivate my base. You can’t see it, but I am motivating, or is it just groveling?

My address is:
Steve Dana for County Council
1101 Avenue D Ste C-102 PMB 132
Snohomish, WA 98290

Tags:
May 30, 2009

Trash Talk about Trash!

by Steve Dana

The city of Bothell will annex another chunk of unincorporated Snohomish County into their city later this year. For many years, we argued about whether cities should annex. Snohomish County was made the keeper of the annexation approval stamp and they were very stingy with it. Most annexations are not controversial in the way this Bothell one is.

We are not arguing the merits of the annexation. Everyone agrees the designated land is urban and belongs in a city. (I could argue it belongs in a different city, but that piece will have to wait for another day) The controversy embroiling this annexation is about garbage.

Who could think Snohomish County and Bothell would be fighting over garbage? Not who has to take it, but who gets to take it. Garbage is the prize!

Garbage is almost a commodity. Unlike normal perishable commodities that get ripe then spoil, garbage is already over the edge and if it isn’t hauled away, it then gets ripe.

For most of us, we put out the can on Monday morning and when we come home after work, the trash is gone and we start over. Who gives it any thought?

Well, let me tell you, there are folks out there that covet your garbage.

Isn’t it ironic, our government has been preaching that we reduce waste and recycle more and now we hear that they actually want us to produce more garbage? Which is it, more garbage or less garbage?

In Seattle they have garbage police to make sure you don’t put stuff in the garbage that is recyclable. You can be fined for dumping garbage into the garbage if it is recyclable garbage. There is something wrong with that!

If you buy into the recycling argument, then it seems to me the goal is to reduce garbage.

I have been a proponent of handling our waste products locally through a combination of recycling and incineration with co-generation for electricity. Environmentalists complain about the pollution going into the air, but they appear to be okay with the pollution going into the ground.

If there is a comprehensive look at the recycling industry so we can understand what market forces affect them during fluctuations, I could be more enthusiastic about the reality of recycling. My limited experience in dealing with recyclers during my years on the Snohomish City Council did not build confidence that the industry was performing as we were led to believe it was.

In principle, I’m okay with recycling, but the responsibility for collecting, separating and disposing of the stuff should be the garbage handler’s. Rather than making citizens separate their trash, make the whole process a private sector business opportunity. Then I would take it a step further and make it our goal to eliminate land-fill garbage completely. Recycle everything!

We currently pay about $100 per ton to handle solid waste that is shipped by train to some other location where it is buried in an environment that does not promote bio-degrading. That stuff will be in that land-fill for a thousand years. All our household trash encapsulated in our little plastic garbage bags protecting our kitchen floors, but at what cost?

The fact that two counties are fighting over who will get the Snohomish County part of Bothell’s collected trash leads me to believe that reducing waste into the land fill is not a goal of either county.

There are several issues that need resolution here.
1. Is Snohomish County in the garbage collection business because the private sector is unable to handle the job? What are the economic impacts of privatizing the garbage business for the county and for consumers?
2. As a part of our “Green” plan, shouldn’t we be thinking about land-fill liabilities we create? Just because the land-fill is in another county doesn’t mean we are not responsible. This is like wetland mitigation banks that allow urbanites to salve their guilt by paying someone else to feel their pain.
3. If Recycling is a goal for our county, where do we find policies that outline WHO will do WHAT and WHY? If recycling is a county goal, why?
4. Recycling should have an economic as well as an environmental justification. Are there markets for waste stream by-products? If we require that garbage be separated then ship it to the land fill because there is no market, why did we separate?
5. Is changing citizen behavior with recycling a responsibility we want government to assume? Do we want government in the business of changing our behavior? Is the vision of the recycling police the one you want for your neighborhood? What else are they monitoring as they check your trash?

In the near term, the issue of garbage collection in Bothell needs resolution. Even though I don’t believe we should be in the business, we are. Our current county solid waste system is predicated on a sustained volume of product. If we lose money by allowing the trash to be diverted to King County then I say we keep all Snohomish County trash in Snohomish County. I would make it a condition of the annexation that the garbage be collected in our system.

Then I would step back and look at the issues enumerated above. The county should not be in the solid waste business and recycling needs to work on more than one level. There are some real issues to be sorted out here. Let’s start with recycling!

May 11, 2009

Think of it as the IBL – The International Business League

by Steve Dana

Business and trade policies in our country require that businesses be global in their thinking whether they are global in their operations or not.  Competition is keen from the huge internationals right on down to the mom and pop on the corner.

Think of the environment for business today in the context of major league sports.  There are big and small markets vying for the best organizations with various resources available to them.  Within the markets, the organizations are vying for the best talent available in the pool.

Everything is about competition for the best deal.  If you don’t make the best offer, your competition will steal the deal.  It all comes down to how bad you want the best players for your team.  Who are the best players on your roster?

In our market, Boeing is our NFL team, Microsoft is our NBA team and all the other companies represent teams vying for spots on our market roster.  Some are major league competitors and some are not.  Each one of them is a “free agent” looking to make a deal.  What do we have to offer to keep our star players on our team?  How much to we have to give to get the next superstar in our uniform? 

When Seattle made the decision to give up on the Super Sonics they needed to know the actual value that business had to the local economy.  I hope they did some analysis.  Regardless of your personal feelings about an NBA team, the business represented a significant asset to the city.  Losing that business created a hole in the economy.  In this case Seattle decided the cost of keeping that business was higher than the value coming back.  I wonder about their analysis.

How do we accurately calculate what a team, a player or a business is worth to our city, county or state?

At a time when international competition is fierce, businesses have to do what is right for their shareholders.  Decisions are made every day about sourcing raw materials and recruiting a skilled workforce.

Historic relationships between companies and communities have been abandoned as external factors played an increasing role in critical decisions by business owners and managers.  Long gone are the days when a player belonged to a team for life.  Long gone are the days when American workers produced the goods and services consumed by Americans.  American consumers hunger for cheaper and cheaper goods and services driving retailers to look to cheaper markets for materials and labor force.  In order to compete in an international market, who can blame them?

The cost of doing business in a particular place is now a significant factor in determining where future investments will be made.  Proximity to raw materials, availability of energy sources, availability of skilled work force, availability of developed infrastructure and government regulations and taxes play a part in the decision making process. 

At the same time, it is now necessary for current host communities to determine the economic value a business represents as competition heats up for future company investments.  Loss of American jobs to foreign countries has been a foregone conclusion since we adopted a pro-active policy of elevating third world countries’ economic status.  Reductions in American worker wages is also a side benefit as those countries now compete against small businesses across our land for anything and everything made here.

Labor laws in this country vary by state.  As a result, some states are more competitive than others.  State tax laws also play a significant part in the assessments.  Competition for the best deal is brutal on both sides of the negotiations.

Government policies may require that products made for national defense must be produced in the United States, but they don’t specify where in the country.  The competition for a manufacturing company such as Boeing could be likened to the process of recruiting a sports team to your market.  The cost-benefit analysis considers all the variables and spits out a winner.

At the end of the day, how do we stack up against our competition?  What do we have to offer that will attract a winning team to our market?  What are the negatives that might turn the cream of the crop away from our market?  What are the negatives that might cause existing players to be traded away from our team?

If we fail to stay sharp, we risk losing core players to free agency and we stand little chance of recruiting new talent. 

It’s up to us to decide on what level we want to compete and adjust our game accordingly.