Jamie Spends Real Money

The number of registered voters in this county is 12,379. The average number of working people here is 5,445. Of those, 796 are government workers. Those 796 government workers earn more than all the people employed in agriculture, the construction industry, and health care combined (in excess of 1,000 people).

If you're doing sums in your head, you might notice that the working people in San Juan County are a minority of voters (44%), and private-sector workers are an even smaller minority of voters (38%). 

The taxation policies of our county are regressive in several ways. First, the taxes themselves (sales and property taxes) are regressive methods of taxation. Second, the taxes often fund programs that have debilitating regressive effects that are even worse than the taxes. For example, county requirements for land development impose expenditures of tens of thousands of dollars in fees, reports, and evaluations which are beyond the out-of-pocket funding ability of working class people. None of the burden of development costs can be included in a mortgage. All of it has to be paid for out of pocket.

If you are wealthy enough to own enough land, you might be able to take advantage of one of the special programs to reduce your property taxes (e.g., open space designations or conservation easements). The effect of this is also regressive, since it amounts to cost shifting away from larger parcels towards smaller parcels more typically owned by working people.

And it gets worse every year. The pet "solution" proposed for many of our "problems" is an ever growing call for more taxing districts -- more regressive policies. One "solution" currently being discussed for our affordable housing "crisis" is to create a tax to provide a revenue stream to build more affordable housing. This isn't a solution. In reality, it isn't even intended to be a solution. This is simple vote buying. The affordable housing projects on our islands are going broke because they were non-solutions in the first place. They never were economically viable, and federal and state funding for these unsustainable developments have dried up. The future slums of San Juan, Orcas, and Lopez have powerful voting blocks behind them however ... and if politicians once again stiff workers in the county to pander to these voting blocks, it won't amount to much electorally. 

Without some disruptive economic event to grow the working middle class, private sector workers are unlikely to ever again be fairly represented here. San Juan County will continue to be the playground of special interests that impose restrictions on others, but give themselves a pass. Anyone who professes to believe that new government programs will help workers is either on the make or a complete fool. The last thing the existing patronage system wants is to shift power to workers and the middle class, even if they are willing to pay lip service to it from time to time. In reality, the entire funding and functional purpose of the government apparatus here is to provide special treatment for the connected while keeping workers in their place.

Make sure Councilman Jamie gets special treatment

Dispatch the boat for Sam. She doesn't want to wait for the ferry.

What's in a Number?

Let's look at the numbers for our county from the state data book. These are the official numbers from the Office of Financial Management (OFM). The 2014 numbers aren't ready yet, so we'll take a look at the 2013 figures.

The total population of our county is 16,000. We rank 32nd out of 39 counties in that regard. 

Based on information from the data book, we are able to get a rough idea of the number of adults in our county ... and that number is 13,448. It's probably a bit more because we don't have exact numbers for 18 and 19 year olds, but we'll use 13,500 as an approximate number of our adult resident population.

So, we have 13,500 adults, and according to the latest figures available from our County Auditor, we have 11,985 registered voters (down slightly from 2012). That means we have about 1,500 unregistered voters, which is about the same number of voters as live on Lopez (2,000 registered voters). We might, therefore, think of our 1,500 unregistered voters as the equivalent of a "missing island" of unrepresented residents. No telling why they are unregistered ... they might be disengaged ... or some might be non-citizens. We don't know their status, but considering that some of our most important elections have had margins of victory of one hundred votes or less, the "missing island" could be influential if it were ever able to become engaged.

Among registered voters, we generally have quite high voter turnout (~8,000 votes), so our elections are determined by about 60% of the adults in the county, or about half the overall population).

More people die here every year than are born. Whatever population stability or growth that we experience comes from net migration here.

Regarding employment, our average number of employees according to the state data book is 5,201, and this figure is in line with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The BLS data also shows that monthly employment peaks at about 6,400 jobs in August and dips to about 4,700 jobs in January. We interpret that to mean that our county is able to provide about 4,700 year round jobs and about 1,700 seasonal jobs ... meaning that 25% of our jobs are seasonal. Overall employment is flat, and statistics from the Regional Economic Analysis Project show that we lag both the state and the nation in job growth.

Government, according to the state data book, provides 971 jobs or about 19% of total average employment. It is our second largest employment sector, as measured by number of employees (accommodation/service jobs are our largest); however, since our government jobs are relatively highly paid, government is our largest employer by dollar volume at 24% of wages paid. On a per capita basis, the total compensation of government employees is 27% above our county average. The only employment sector that pays significantly more than government work is utilities. 

Our biggest employment sectors are government, accommodation/service, and construction. No other employment sector breaks double digits percentage wise. We think of ourselves as an agricultural community, but agriculture/forestry/fishing/hunting combined don't even crack the 1% threshold. The much touted "recreation" employment category (i.e., think Friends and PSP targeted awareness of "Our Environment is Our Economy") is our lowest paid employment sector, with wages 37% below the county average. It accounts for 2% of our employment.

Looking at the numbers above, you will notice that we have 13,500 adults, but only 6,400 have any kind of job. More of our adults (7,100) don't work than work. The state data book also gives us some insight into the incomes of these two groups. Total wages paid in the county is $163 million, but total income earned by all residents in the county is $854 million. If we assume that our workers have little to no income beyond their wages, then that would mean that the average income of workers here is about $31K, whereas the average income of adult non-workers is $83K.

In other words, it would suggest something we already know ... that jobs here are not creating wealth here. We import our wealth. The data also show that we have the lowest percentage of workers and lowest earned wages (as a percentage of total income) of anywhere in the state. In terms of average wages, we are 37th out of 39 counties ... and yet, on an average basis, we rank 2nd of 39 counties in terms of per capita income. Averages do not tell the story of our economy here ... so beware.

We will delve more into the state data book numbers in the next post, especially as it relates to property values, taxes, and the (dis)connection of government to the local economy.

The Incredible Shrinking Buildout

Not very long ago, the word "buildout" was standard fare in the government lexicon of this county. It was equal measures of bogeyman, planning-speak, and rallying cry. "Buildout" is the theoretical maximum population of the county if all parcels were developed. The whole "buildout" topic was fertile ground for predictions of a dystopian San Juan future.

And speaking of a dystopian future, one of my favorite examples of fictional Friends writing was their 2002 Spring newsletter titled Managing Growth. The subtitle was "News from the Voice of the Environment, Spring 2002." It's a hoot and a classic, and I urge everyone to read it. In addition to wild predictions of growth and the Friends bragging about how they were saving us, it contains a profile of then-President Lynn Bahrych.

Lynn Bahrych, University of Washington professor, high-powered Seattle attorney, heroine of the Comp Plan battles, and delightful companion — a true renaissance woman. How did FRIENDS get so lucky as to get Lynn Bahrych as Board President?

Delightful. It actually says "delightful."

As entertaining as that description may be, the best aspects about that Newsletter are its predictions of horrifying growth and related effects. It says:

• More than a million people will be added to the State of Washington’s population in the next decade and, without a dramatic change in trends, San Juan County will get considerably more than its fair share of them. [Note: the State's population grew by 830,419 from 2000 to 2010, almost all of it to urban areas. San Juan County received 1,592 people, which was less than its pro rata share.]
• San Juan County’s population and housing growth are not only out of control, but they’ve actually accelerated relative to other counties since the adoption of the current Comp Plan.[Note: our current growth rate of about half of one-percent per year is far less than the state's. We are one of the slowest growing counties in the state.]
• The projected build-out population numbers are so huge that the Plan offers virtually no control over growth for at least the next twenty years. Only as County population approaches the build-out level will the Plan start to manage growth rates. Although the Comp Plan is coy about build out numbers, the County Planning Department has projected a buildout population (without guest houses) of between 45,000 and 57,000. [Note: see later in this post.]
• The impact on traffic is likely to correspond to the growth in population: a 40-50 percent increase in the next decade, a doubling of traffic volumes by 2020, and worse if the BOCC’s liberal approach to guest houses prevails. Nancy Spaulding, a 30 year resident of San Juan Island, comments: “In the time we’ve been living on the island, we’ve seen our small road turn into a busy highway. [Note: as a result of the Scenic Byway and the availability of federal money for road building, our Public Works Department has been building roads out of step with our rural character, despite citizen complaints. Growth in government, not growth in population, has been driving road building.]
• Another consequence of growth will be an increase in crime, probably at a faster rate than the increase in population. As we live closer and closer together, and as the gap between “haves” and “have nots” widens, we can expect significant growth in crime rates. Attorney and FRIENDS Board member Maile Johnson comments: “Growth breeds crime at an accelerating pace – if current trends continue, the County will need court space beyond anything the BOCC has considered.”[Note: we've seen drugs and crime grow here, but it hasn't been because of growth. If anything, it's been because of lack of growth and opportunity].
• Finally, there will be the summer crowds ... there’s no reason to expect a change in the traditional summer ratio of one visitor per resident. (Or, putting it another way, whatever the population, it will double in the summer.) Lynn Bahrych, President of FRIENDS, asks pointedly: “Can you imagine a July Fourth with 200,000 people in the San Juans?” [Note: for the most part, the Friends have steadfastly supported tourism and tourism initiatives such as the Scenic Byway; however, when it is in their financial interests, they oppose specific tourist initiatives, such as the "buildout" of the Lopez Islander Resort or the sale of Helen King's B&B.]

But back to buildout specifically ... when our County adopted its first Comprehensive Plan around 2000, it was required to downzone in rural areas and upzone in "urban" areas. The result was that 75,000 acres in the county (out of 110,000 total acres) were downzoned. According to estimates from Planning Commissioners at the time, more than 10,000 development rights were eliminated in order to bring our Comprehensive Plan into GMA compliance. After that happened, the Friends then pushed to do away with guest houses too, and they were largely successful.

The net result is that, several years before the current job-killing CAOs even appeared, our longterm ability to grow and build in these islands was crushed. And, in addition to the Friends, many familiar names participated in (and benefited from) these events. Note that Tom Cowan was a BOCC member who approved of our GMA participation, who later that same year was a driving force in founding the Land Bank, and who still is a Land Bank Commissioner to this day, who went on to found the Marine Resources Committee and the Marine Stewardship Network, and who has had a long and successful career as a consultant for Ecology, and who has worked on everything from the San Juan Initiative to Puget Sound Partnership activities. Rhea Miller was a BOCC member during Comp Plan downzoning, which coincidentally also resulted in upzoning in certain areas to allow for rural residential clusters. Rural residential clusters is the scheme that was invented to "solve" our affordable housing crisis via developments such as the Lopez Community Land Trust, which Miller co-runs. She's not alone ... one of the former executive directors of the Friends runs the San Juan Community Home Trust. These people worked to restrict housing by tens of thousands of units and also eliminate relatively low cost and affordable guest houses, while promoting their own pet high-density developments. The list of beneficiaries of the "new GMA economy" invented during the 90s and 2000s is long, and they still hide in plain sight at CD&P (or DCD as it is now called), the various Land Trusts, the Conservation District, the LIO, the Madrona Institute, the Stewardship Network, and on many of our county committees.

The effect of the GMA and the war-on-buildout was to eliminate many private opportunities for growth and economic development, and replace it with a growing mountain of government sanctioned bureaucracies, committees, and quangos ... attachment points for the revolving door of government officials and insiders ... places where careers were built and riches were made, lubricated by grant funding that poured in to "save the San Juans". It's as if government growth body-snatched the private growth that might have happened.

Government grew while our private economy perished. The San Juans weren't "saved" ... the San Juans that everybody knew and loved were legislated out of existence for 30 pieces of grant money, and the GMA has been the Via Dolorosa.

Where do we stand on buildout today? Nearly 60% of parcels have some development on them already. We estimate that a further 20% of parcels are protected from development (e.g., Land Bank, parks, National Park, National Monument, etc.). Consequently, we are probably close to 75% built out (i.e., 60% out of 80% available), and if we consider that many people own more than one parcel and will probably never build on every parcel they own, our buildout proportion may be even higher. We are probably close to full buildout.

The Office of Financial Management puts out growth projections every five years for every county in the state. Each county projection consists of a high, middle, and low projection trend. The projection used by our County in planning documents and forecasts has been the middle trend; however, we have consistently failed to achieve the growth trend of even the lowest projection since 2002. The most recent growth projection for San Juan County has a flat middle growth trend, and the lowest growth trend projection shows a decline.

We have a growth problem. (Except for tourism) We aren't growing at all.

Our Phenomenal Growth Rates

San Juan County had a larger population in 1920 (3,605) than in 1960 (2,872). For most of San Juan County's history, population growth has been negligible.

Then the 70's hit. The population of the islands doubled. The Growth Management Act (GMA) was enacted in 1990. We were not required to fully plan under the GMA because our population was less than 50,000, but our growth rate exceeded 20% over the previous decade. That triggered a special provision of the GMA which allowed us to opt out of fully planning if our County Commissioners were to vote for exclusion. However, our Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) at the time affirmed our full participation in the GMA via Resolution 113-1990 (see below).

While we had phenomenal rates of growth for several decades (103% during the 70s, 28% during the 80s, and 40% during the 90s), we were growing from a low base. In raw numbers, we only added about 12,000 people to our population from 1970 to 2010. Annualized growth over that time was 3.2%. Since 2010, annualized growth is far less than 1% ... we are essentially back to negligible population growth.

A few other curious points that may be of interest to some readers ...

In 1990, the Land Bank was formed. At its inception, it was forecast to protect 5,000 acres and 10 miles of shoreline over the next quarter century. According to the Land Bank's annual reports, it had achieved this goal by 2013.

More people live in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties than in all the rest of the state combined.

The 12,000 people added to San Juan County's population over the 40 years from 1970 to 2010 is equivalent to about 6 months of population growth in King County (based on their growth from 2004 to 2014).

Lopez Island (population 2,177) is approximately the same size as the island of Manhattan, which has a population of 1.62 million. In fact, if current rates of growth in Washington state were to continue apace, the entire state wouldn't achieve the current population of just New York City until another 25 years.

A Failed State is the Friends' Success

When the future of the county is discussed, we often hear the admonition that "We don't want to become Nantucket ... or Jackson Hole!" Truth be told, no community should ever want to be us. By almost any measure, we are an economic and demographic wreck ... all the more so because most of the people who live here are in denial about it.

Today we begin a series of articles about the economy of San Juan County. We are not who we think we are, and this series will focus on facts, not marketing hype. We will show the facts and numbers as presented in government statistics and university studies, not tourist brochures.

We begin with income inequality. We present two simple items of information - one from the New York Times and another from a 40-year study of income inequality of the Pacific Northwest prepared by Eastern Washington University.

The 2014 study from Eastern Washington University can be found here. It shows San Juan County to have the greatest income inequality of anywhere in the Pacific Northwest. The study looked at 143 counties, including all the counties of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho; and 24 counties in western Montana.

The New York Times information can be found here. It's based on research from Harvard University, and it's focus is income mobility ... how likely you are to change your station in life? It shows that growing up in San Juan County is a misfortune for the future earnings of our children compared to growing up somewhere else in the nation. We are below average in helping poor kids up the income ladder ... but for average or rich kids, we're a tragedy. After growing up in San Juan County, the future earnings of average-income and rich kids is negative compared to growing up somewhere else in the nation. In fact, for those cohorts, we are at the the bottom of the pile. Growing up almost anywhere else is better for the future earnings of our children than growing up here.

As you sow, so shall you reap.

A friend sent me the photos below of notes from a community meeting on one of our islands. The meeting was convened to discuss the growing drug problem in these islands. People were asked to write down the root causes of the drug problem.

Next Time You're In The Ferry Line ...

"Is it just me, or are there a lot more tourists this summer?" That was the question I asked the ticket agent at the Anacortes ferry kiosk. 

"Oh, ever since Memorial Day, the numbers have been through the roof," said the ticket agent. "But I suppose that's good ... probably means the economy is doing better." 

"I'd rather have half the tourists and twice the number of year-round jobs," I said. 

"Yeah ... I guess that makes sense," said the agent.

It makes sense to me anyway.

No matter what island you live on, the tourist hordes seem to be overwhelming recently. In Friday Harbor, it's even harder to find parking spaces than previous summers, and the jets flying into the airport seem to be ... well ... just a bit much. The lines to leave Lopez for Anacortes on a Saturday are now as long as they used to be on Sunday afternoon.

When asked about the lines, one Lopez ferry worker (a long-time resident) voiced her frustration, "There are just too many people. There are just TOO MANY! We need to decide if we want to be Friday Harbor because this is just too much! It's busy all the time. No let-up."

In the midst of the onslaught, our little businesses can't find enough seasonal workers to handle the crush. In Friday Harbor, some restaurants are closed two days a week during the high season simply because they can't find enough workers. Same is true for Orcas, I hear. On Lopez, one restaurant has put out want-ads that amount to begging for seasonal help ... even willing to take people on for just a day or two during their visit to the islands.

Welcome to the economy of "protection" ... the economy of the National Monument ... the Scenic Byway ... tourist board ... the "one of the places to see before you die" economy. This is the Friends economy. It's the one they always wanted, but it's still just a transitional stage ... because there's more to do.

For the rest of this story, continue reading on the new Trojan Heron Blog

Broken Dreams - First In A Series

As anyone who has watched County events over the past few years would know, our local government is in the business of crushing dreams, not making them come true. If you've watched with anger and disappointment as our elected Council heaps abusive laws on us, you might have come to the conclusion that we should just let the Department of Ecology appoint our Councilmen so we can at least save money on elections. It couldn't be any worse. The abusive laws allow the Friends of the San Juans to harass us. The process has become the punishment. Tonight we start the first of a series telling the stories of islanders.

The Lopez Islander Resort

“Friends” and Neighbors in the San Juans

The ability to run a small lodging business in San Juan County is at risk as long as the “Friends” (of the San Juans) are your neighbors. They may say that they support tourism and small business but that is disingenuous and here’s why.

The Lopez Islander Resort has been a landmark in Fisherman’s Bay for almost 70 years. It was first established in 1945 when Nan and Otto Perkins moved to Lopez Island after the war. On a cold stormy night a few years later the resort burned to the ground. Neighbors held a party at Woodman Hall where they donated enough money to help rebuild the restaurant and a few guest rooms. That was back in the days when “friends” meant something entirely different than it does today.

In the following years the resort went through a series of owners. Mr. Wally Trace purchased the property in 1992 as Lopez Islander Inc. and immediately applied for and received approval of a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit for further expansion of the resort and marina. At that time none of the neighbors opposed the project. However, the resort went bankrupt after completing their improvements. It’s not easy to run a business like this in San Juan County, even with community support.

In 1997 Diller Associates purchased the resort. The place was a bit run down and had been for sale for about 3 years. Bill Diller made it very clear from the beginning that he would be “sprucing up” the resort. He had been a frequent visitor to the islands and was excited about the possibility of owning a small business that served his community and employed more than 25 local islanders during tourist season.

After fixing up the resort and getting it back into business, the Dillers saw the potential to do more with their investment. In 2010, Diller Associates applied for a permit to expand the marina to accommodate an additional 50 moorage slips. They ran into some roadblocks because of a small patch of eelgrass. At this point they didn’t feel like fighting for the permit, but two years later they needed to grow their business.

There were campsites on the property for families on a budget and the owners saw the need to add a few more as well as several RV campsites. They wanted to tear down and replace some of the older cabins and add a new building with 7 guest rooms, which was allowed outright under the zoning code. They also applied for a shoreline permit to build a small structure for a kayak rental business. They didn’t expect a fight over this modest expansion but they got one from the “Friends” of the San Juans.

The “Friends” were called into action by a small group of neighbors who for whatever reason wanted the project stopped[1]. The neighbors solicited by email, “tax deductible contributions to the Friends of the San Juans ... that will be applied directly to fund Laura’s work.” [2] (Former Planning Director Laura Arnold).

The “Friends” stepped in with their team of litigators and organized against the Dillers, even though the project was perfectly legal under the County’s land use codes.[3] This is an example of the “Friends” tactic of turning neighbor against neighbor. All of the surrounding neighbors purchased property next to an existing resort. Why would they all of a sudden object to the resort?

The Friends hired Laura Arnold to help them fight the project. In an email message Ms. Arnold said,

“It appears to me that the County Code anticipates this type and intensity of use in this land-use district and would, I expect, find it difficult to deny the proposal . . .”[4]

The Dillers held a public meeting in August 2012 to listen and respond to the concerns of their neighbors. They made concessions and changed the site plan in an effort to mitigate concerns.

This did not deter this group of activists and attorneys from going ahead and appealing the permit and arguing before the Hearing Examiner. It was a “change of use” they declared and therefore subject to mitigation. The Dillers persevered, and the “Friends” succeeded in adding substantial costs to the small business.

This time the Diller’s were determined to fight their way through the process. After hiring engineers and consultants to do all types of studies demanded by the “Friends,” and hiring land use experts and attorneys, they had invested more than six figures to get a permit that without the intervention of the “Friends” would have been routinely approved.

While this battle was being fought the “Friends” published a county-wide mailer entitled, “Shorelines: Where We Live, Work, & Play.” In it they say,

"Protecting our shorelines is good for our economy and our environment. Our visitors contributed over $158.5 million to our local economy last year,” said Stephanie Buffum, Executive Director of “FRIENDS” of the San Juans.

If the “Friends” acknowledge the importance of tourism to our local economy then why did they take up a fight to cripple a small scale lodging business by challenging permits for a modest expansion? The local lodging industry is the basic driving force for low impact island tourism and contributes millions each year to the community through lodging taxes. It is a fact that small-scale island resorts benefit the local economy in many ways, not the least of which is attracting customers who spend money and support other island businesses. The evidence suggests that the “Friends” don’t really want people to “Live, Work, & Play” anywhere near the shoreline.

The ability to run a small business is at risk as long as the “Friends” are your neighbors. For a business investor, risking capital to hire attorneys and other professionals to face endless challenges by the “Friends” for a simple permit reduces potential profitability and discourages investment. Who is it that makes a community thrive? Is it people who invest in it and work hard or the people who organize neighbor against neighbor to restrict the very things that create economic vitality? Perhaps the “Friends” need to find the answer to that question before they focus their special interest litigation machine against other island neighbors.
____________________________________________________________
[1] Email from Mr. Rick Strachan, 5/20/13, “It may well be true that this application will be decided on strict issues enumerated in the application, but it seems that all our concerns stem from Mr. Diller himself, not from the proposal itself.” 
[2] Email 5/11/13 from Peter Cavanagh to neighbors. 
[3] A hotel/motel is allowed outright in the Village Commercial Zone.  Campgrounds (RV and tent camping) require a conditional use permit approval. This information is found in Table 3.1 of the Unified Development Code. 
[4] Email 5/11/13 from Peter Cavanagh to neighbors.

Pure Imagination: Tulalip Burial Grounds

Dana Kinsey of Orcas Island, and formerly of the Conservation District, recently wrote an open letter to Councilmen Jarman and Hughes about her concerns regarding our Local Integrating Organization (LIO). In her letter, Kinsey alleges that Linda Lyshall has been shifting LIO funding to the Conservation Distict for her own benefit. Kinsey wrote:

It appears that [Lyshall] is determining projects, grantees and funding now. I thought she was originally hired by San Juan County to coordinate the LIO part time as a county employee. Now suddenly, in this new proposal all the work and money go to the Conservation District. Is it because [Lyshall] took a job there in May?

We agree with Kinsey that the Council should start asking the LIO a lot more questions ... everyone should. Even in a world where miscreant government is the norm, the LIO sticks out for being a freakish Franken-bureaucracy beyond compare.

The Trojan Heron will do an entire series of posts about the LIO in the near future, but for the moment, we want to provide some background about one of its governing members ... the Tulalip Tribes. 

First, we need to explain how the Tulalips fit into the LIO. The LIO is "governed" by an Accountability Oversight Committee (AOC) comprised of our County government together with three local tribes ... the Tulalip Tribes, the Lummi Nation, and the Swinomish Tribe. The LIO manages our local ecosystem, using the Puget Sound Partnership's Action Agenda for San Juan County as a plan.  That's right ... our local ecosystem is not managed by our elected County Council. Instead it is managed according to a blueprint (the Action Agenda) formulated by a State bureaucracy (the PSP) and then implemented by an intergovernmental panel consisting of 1 collective vote for 3 local tribes and 1 vote for our elected County government.

So what are our LIO tribal partners like? Here are some facts about the Tulalips.

As anyone who has driven down I-5 knows, the Tulalip Tribes have a reservation in Snohomish County. The 22,000-acre reservation is home to about 2,500 tribal members (another 1,500 live off the reservation) and about 8,000 non-tribal members. That gives the reservation a population density exceeding 3 times that of San Juan County. 

According to DSHS, tribal members are entitled to a $2,000 quarterly stipend, with a December bonus of $3,500. In 2012, tribal members received $11,500. The elderly and disabled receive payments of $1,000 per month. Tuition assistance is available for Tulalip tribal members attending college. Tribal members also receive an employment preference for jobs on the reservation.

Who gets to be a Tulalip tribal member? That is a very interesting question. These days, to become a Tulalip tribal member, a child has to be born to a tribal member who has lived on the reservation for at least 12 months prior to the child's birth. That means that a full-blood Tulalip born in Boston, New York City, or Portland is not a member of the tribe and can never be a member of the tribe. On the other hand, even a mostly non-Tulalip child born on the reservation to a tribal member is automatically a tribal member. These strange tribal membership rules are described by a Tulalip tribal member and blogger in the following way:

As a 20 year old Tulalip female, it disturbs me to know that there is no blood quantum to become a Tulalip tribal member. “The applicant must be a child born to any Member of the tribe, which Member is a Resident as defined herein.” [Sec.3.0] Since this is all you have to do to become a tribal member, the tribe ends up having a lot of non-native members. 

The rules provide a loop hole that permits whites and other non-natives to enroll. My cousin is a perfect example. He is less than one-eighth and is still an enrolled tribal member. His child is less than one-sixteenth because he is having a baby with a white woman. His child will surely be enrolled because he lives on the Tulalip Reservation and is a tribal member of the Tulalip tribes. The resident rule excludes some Native Americans from enrollment. 

For example, my younger sister didn’t have acceptable mail with her name and address on it. She needed it to prove residency which caused problems in enrolling her children. My sister is currently living on the Tulalip reservation with her children where they have been living since they were born. The rules also cause problems for Tulalip tribal members who move off of the reservation.

Other tribes tease the Tulalip tribes because many of our members are white. They call us white Tulalip because the large amount of white tribal members. A Native American tribe is supposed to be made up of Native American people not white or black people. If non-natives are allowed to be enrolled, they take money from the Native Americans.

In other words, Tulalip tribal membership isn't the same as Tulalip heritage anymore, and the Tulalips are not the only tribe to view tribal membership in this way. In fact, a congressional study predicts that nationwide only 3% of "Indians" will be full blooded by 2080.

The Tulalips have been very successful economically. The reservation operates Quil Ceda Village (a 100-store mall), Quil Ceda Creek Casino, Tulalip Resort Casino, Tulalip Liquor Store and Smoke Shop, Tulalip Broadband, a fish hatchery, and a closed hazardous waste landfill that used to be a Superfund site ... more on that in a moment.

Tulalip operations earn hundreds of millions in revenue each year (estimated to be more than $200 million back in 2005). Only a very small proportion of tribal revenue is generated from fishing these days. Reportedly, 30 tribal members are licensed to fish, which is down from about 130 tribal members in the mid-1980s.

Getting back to the Tulalip Superfund Site, the EPA says the following:

Tulalip Landfill is a 147-acre site located on North Ebey Island, within the boundaries of the Tulalip Indian Reservation near Marysville, Washington. The landfill is surrounded by Ebey Slough to the north and Steamboat Slough to the south. Surface water from these sloughs flows into northern Puget Sound, a federally designated national estuary that is a recognized habitat for shellfish and some endangered species, including salmon. The Tulalip Tribe leased land to the Seattle Disposal Company from 1964 to 1979. During that time, an estimated four million tons of commercial, industrial, and hospital waste were deposited in the landfill. In 1979, the landfill was closed. An estimated 7,800 people obtain their drinking water from private and municipal wells that are within four miles of the site. The nearest drinking water source is within one mile of the site.

The site underwent cleanup about 15 years ago, and in April 2013, the EPA completed it's third 5-Year Review of the remedy. The remedy consists of an engineered 7-layer containment system to better isolate the waste and contamination, groundwater monitoring for at least 30 years, and institutional controls (e.g., land use restrictions and administrative controls such as warning signs).

Prior to landfilling activities, the land on which the landfill is located consisted of relatively undisturbed intertidal wetlands. After landfilling operations ceased, contaminated leachate was seeping out into the nearby wetlands causing concerns for human health and the environment, so the site was added to the National Priorities List (NPL) in April 1995. In an editorial from that year, Greg Wingard, President Waste Action Project Seattle, wrote the following:

EPA investigation of the site showed hazardous and bio-hazard waste was disposed of there. Leachate from the landfill was determined to be toxic and a danger to salmon in the nearby Quilceda Creek.  When EPA sent a team of divers in to investigate the landfill's impact on Puget Sound, they found body parts, bloody bandages and other medical waste.

Most of the divers contracted armpit and groin infections as a result of their exposure. Tests run on bacteria samples by EPA showed most of the samples were highly resistant to the 13 antibiotics tested. Some of the samples were 100 percent resistant to everything used against them. This information is contained in the EPA Region X file on the landfill.

From looking at the documentation and the data, I have to say that I truly believe the Tulalip landfill has an effective remedy in place now. In its current remediated state, I believe that the risks to human health and the environment have been mitigated. But if the remediated Tulalip landfill of horrors can safety exist directly adjacent to the shore of Puget Sound, so can an average home in the San Juans.

The Tulalips have a role in managing our ecosystem via the LIO. Tribal employees (e.g., Kit Rawson) have been long-term tribal representatives to our Marine Resources Committee. Tulalips have "usual and accustomed" fishing rights in our waters. When you encounter Tulalip environmental-ish policies and statements regarding salmon ... or regarding climate change and sea level rise ... or even their heritage ... take note that fishing is just one more line of business for the tribe and its tribal members ... take note that the Tulalip reservation has a delisted Superfund site sitting in wetlands barely above high tide on Puget Sound ... take note of who gets to be a Tulalip tribal member and who doesn't ... take note that the tribe is an economic and development powerhouse.

I believe Tulalip tribal government officials have been very effective advocates for the economic and cultural interests of their tribal members ... and we should expect our County Council to be no less effective at advocating for us.

An oblique aerial photo of the remediated Tulalip Superfund Landfill on North Ebey Island on the Tulalip Reservation.  Where is the buffer?

Staff Salary Adjustments

Since there has been some commentary (and disbelief) expressed about staff salaries and past salary adjustments, we thought we would review the available data. We first posted about staff salary adjustments in July 2012. We promised to post more, but events overtook us and we never did. Given the recent commentary and controversy, we felt it was time to complete the thought we had back in July 2012. Here are the facts and documentation. You decide.

First, we received the following tip from a source within the County itself.

On January 10, 2012, the Council passed, by Resolution 5-2012, staffing levels and pay and benefit schedules for 2012.  This Resolution adopts the new salary schedules - without showing what it represents for individual positions.  Therefore, I’d like to add some perspective prior to these adjustments taking affect with the August payroll. 

The reclassification/salary study, required under the bargaining agreement, was completed under Pamela Morias’ leadership.  The results provided raises ranging from over $10,000 to nearly $16,000 each for five unrepresented people – Ms. Morais, her significant other, two other department heads, and two managers – while over 40 other staff-members show reductions by as much as $8,655.  This is public information, yet the public has not been made aware of it.   It is also unclear whether the Council was ever aware of it, as this was never presented in open session.  On September 20, 2011, there was a closed session held pursuant to RCW 42.30.140(4)(b) to discuss matters pertaining to collective bargaining.  If this document was presented then, the information pertaining to unrepresented employees should have been presented in public.  Staff was given an opportunity to appeal their reclassification by the end of November, after the proposed pay grade placement chart was distributed at an all staff meeting in October.  The document distributed at the all-staff meeting revealed salary adjustments to individual positions.   At the point the document was distributed staff-wide, it became a “public” document, yet was protected as a draft bargaining document by Ms. Morais, who withheld it from a media records request in January of 2012. 

It was reported in the Journal that the County will be cutting 14 positions to close the shortfall of $800,000 for next year if the tax increase does not pass and by 7 positions and $400,000 if it does pass.  This article also states that over the past 4 years, the County has gone through five rounds of budget cuts, 32 FTEs have been eliminated, and employees across the board have been required to take furloughs.  By implementing the reclassification and its resulting salaries, this nets an overall increase in wages in the neighborhood of $400,000, with approximately $175,000 on the side of unrepresented staff (including the hefty raises mentioned earlier – for department heads already at the high end of the scale).  The totals were arrived at by taking the positions listed on the proposed paygrade and placement chart, matching them as best as possible with employees, and using the median current wage against the median proposed wage.  In full disclosure, the worksheet used is not complete, as there were more positions listed than could be matched with employees, and some may be placed incorrectly.

It is understood that the union employees are entitled to this schedule, but this is not the case for unrepresented staff.  The study itself may be flawed in the comparator data or its interpretation, especially in light of the shrinking staffing levels, leaving managers with fewer employees and fewer projects to manage.  Considering the economy, reduction in staff, and the out-migration this county is experiencing, the time is not right for such increases.  Reconsidering the management salary increases and preserving at least one position prior to implementation and the election could prove to have a positive caste, demonstrating good will by San Juan County officials to its electorate. 

And below is a link to a folder containing supporting documentation related to 2012 salary adjustments. According to the data, Pamela Morais, the County HR Head who commissioned and supervised a 2011 salary study, received an increase that lifted her own annual salary from $76,455 to $87,797. Her partner, John Manning, received an increase that lifted his annual salary from $84,822 to $95,040.

Were either of them (or any of the others who received increases) underpaid?

Regarding the attached files, pay particular attention to the spreadsheet, which summarizes pay adjustments by person. The powerpoint presentation explains the purported justification for the adjustments.

(Click the folder below to open. Click the files to preview or download.  If you cannot view Flash content, click on this link.)

The Finances of New Economics

There has been a great deal of discussion in the comments about OPAL, so I thought I would post some information related to their finances. Below is information from their 990 Form from 2010 (the latest year I could find online). It shows over $8 million in net assets ($10 million in gross assets), with revenue of over $3 million, which includes public funding of about half a million in 2010.

The business model seems pretty sweet. With all the talk about land being held in common, it's easy to forget that someone (i.e., the OPAL organization) actually does own the land, and the economic benefits of land ownership accrue to the balance sheet of OPAL rather than to individual homeowners. OPAL owns the underlying land asset, receives income from the sale of housing, and receives public funding on top of that. That's hard to beat, especially when OPAL receives funding to purchase the land debt-free and receives tax relief for being a 501(c)(3) (and because of County waivers too).

The New Economy is very profitable, but it is a model of economic dependency ... dependency on outside subsidy and tax breaks. It is not a model of economic self-sufficiency. It is not a model of economic productivity.

In our modern mixed economy, there should always be a place for projects like this of appropriate scale in our communities, but it can never be a model for the whole community. It is unsustainable.

Click to Enlarge - OPAL Finances in 2010

Kissing Cousins

The Washington PDC has updated tallies for our candidates. Byers and Pratt continue to lead the field with $21,671 and $19,041 respectively. We keep mentioning how different these two campaigns are from all the others, but of course, the candidates themselves (and their supporters) don't see it that way. Have a look at their answers to the Eagle Forum, for example. Pratt tries to deflect criticism by saying that 33% of one of her opponent's campaigns (Bob Jarman's) has been financed by a Board Member of the Common Sense Alliance (CSA). However, Bob Jarman has a paltry 12 contributors compared to the 153 (i.e., the 1%) highly-linked contributors for Pratt.

In Byers' Eagle Forum answers, she says that she has received no campaign funds from the Friends, and as an organization, that's true. The Eagle Forum might have more accurately asked about her connections to the people comprising the Stewardship Network. In the spirit of fairness, let's look at a summary of who is donating to Byers campaign.

• 1 Board member of the Friends plus her husband (largest donors to Byers campaign)
• 1 Board member of Kwiaht who is also a Planning Commissioner
• 2 members of the Charter Review Commission
• 2 Land Bank Commissioners plus the Head of the Land Bank
• 3 members of the MRC, one of whom is also an employee of the Friends, and another who is also the County's Salmon Lead Entity Coordinator
• 3 local Democratic Party officials, one of whom is (simultaneously) also the Head of the Madrona Institute, the Stewardship Network fiscal agent, and President of the Conservation District
• 4 members of the League of Women Voters, one of whom is also a Planning Commissioner
• 6 people associated with one or more of our Island Land Trusts, and
• 14 Byers campaign donors have also donated to Pratt

Remember, this is on top of the expansive connections already described in one of our earlier posts regarding Byers' (and Pratt's) Campaign Committee. Is there anything wrong with active citizens playing multiple roles in our community? Well ... sometimes yes. When the same people become entrenched for years as a virtual ascendancy, then there can be potential problems.

But many ordinary citizens are wondering if something more fundamental is going on. It looks for all the world like the eco/conservation crowd is hooking up with the Community Land Trust crowd to re-engineer our entire economy and island way of life. Are we crazy for having those suspicions? Maybe not. Consider the following.

Most Community Land Trusts are 501(c)(3)s ... for those of us who believe that this is actually the right way to ... that this is part of a larger Land Reform Movement ... it would be great if we weren't constrained by 501(c)(3)s ... but in terms of replicating this model and actually getting it on the ground, the place where it has had the most traction has been in the affordable housing world and therefore having that 501(c)(3) status has provided a way to work within the existing economy to implement this alternative economy. There are a number of Conservation Land Trusts and Community Land Trusts that work collaboratively.  There are a few that I know of in the same organization ... my specific experience has been that, again, it takes relationships and specific projects to coalesce around. - Lisa Byers, June 2012 -- New Economics Institute Conference Q&A

Alternative economy? ... relationships and specific projects to coalesce around? ... seems like one more thing in this county that makes you go "hmmm."

In addition to being Executive Director of OPAL, Byers is the President of the National Community Land Trust, and she is part of the New Economics Institute, which is a heterodox economics organization. We're not talking Keynes versus Hayek ... we're talking Schumacher and people who believe in degrowth -- and as appealing as some aspects of that philosophy may sound to some, most of it is simply an anti-capitalistic power grab disguised as eco wholesomeness.

We'll have more about that in future posts, but to get rolling, have a look at an excerpt of Byers from a New Economics Institute Conference in New York from last June. By the way, Byers starts off with a quote by Thomas Paine that (we believe) she misconstrues. We'll have more about that too in later posts.



(34) Excerpt from Lisa Byers - Indian Line Farm: Conservation, Affordable Access, Sustainability from New Economics Institute on Vimeo

The Friends Owed It To Us

There's a line in the movie Caddyshack where Ted Knight's character says to one of the caddies:

I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them.

Taking a cue from Judge Smails, the Friends of the San Juans today appealed our newly adopted CAOs to the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB). They didn't want to do it, but the Friends feel they owe it to us, despite what Stephanie Buffum said as she stood before the Council just two months ago (November 27, 2012):

It's time to finish the CAO. You've got a roadmap. You've had many wonderful comments that have been provided to you. It's unlikely that the next two groups of decision makers sitting in your seats over the next five months will be able to complete more than the previous three councils before you. It's time to finish the CAO. It's time to stop the financial hemorrhage. It's time to stop the conflict. It's time to complete and create certainty for our community. Certainty is good for our economy and our environment.

How is filing an appeal before the GMHB consistent with any of the words spoken by Buffum? It isn't. If the Friends felt the CAOs were so inadequate as to require a GMHB appeal, why did the Friends stridently urge approval? Besides, weren't the Friends (such as Janet Alderton) advocates for some of the more complex and inscrutable aspects of the CAOs?

Who knows what game the Friends are really playing, but it isn't protection of the environment. They just like to mess with people. Pass the CAOs, so we can appeal. Got a B&B CUP permit? ...  we'll oppose that. Want to grow blueberries on your own property? ... we can manufacture a situation where that's illegal too. We're the Friends. We can do anything. We sit on all the important committees. We're the lifeblood of the Network. And we'll get taxpayer money (grants) to mess with you too. Just try to stop us.

From what we've observed, the Friends seem not to be an environmental organization so much as they seem to be professional bullies, and they want our County government to devote all its energy towards aiding and abetting their harassment mission.

Vanity of vanities, saith the Friends, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a County of all its CAOs which it maketh under the GMA? There is no remembrance of former things. All the committees run into the Network; yet the Network is not full: unto the place from whence the CAO come, thither they return again.

Here's the press release the Friends sent out today.
_____________________________________________________________

The FRIENDS of the San Juans has appealed the Critical Areas Ordinance update that San Juan County adopted in December 2012. 

The FRIENDS press release on the appeal to the Growth Managment Board (Board) states the " filed the appeal in an effort to stem the steady, incremental and cumulative degradation of local waters and wildlife. Eelgrass disappeared from 82 acres of embayments between 1995 and 2004. Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Southern Resident Killer Whale and sea bird populations continue to decline. Shoreline trees and shrubs that deliver insects to salmon, and tidal marshes that provide them homes, have also declined significantly over the years."

“Unfortunately, this is the next step,” stated Kyle Loring, FRIENDS’ Staff Attorney. “We see litigation as a last resort, but when seven years and several different processes result in an ordinance riddled with loopholes, like shoreline buffers as small as 30 feet from spawning beaches when other counties seek 150 feet, we feel compelled to turn to the Growth Management Hearings Board for guidance.”

San Olson, President of FRIENDS’ Board of Directors, stated, “We are picking up where experts like the Washington Department of Ecology, locally-affiliated Tribes, and the County’s Marine Resources Committee left off. Each of them offered recommendations to ensure that the CAO protects critical areas, unfortunately many of their recommendations were rejected. FRIENDS’ board is concerned that if we do not challenge the CAO provisions we believe are inadequate, San Juan County would lower the bar for ourselves and those Puget Sound counties just now starting their second round of CAO updates.” 

Election Spending Through The Roof -- Already

Reports from the Public Disclosure Commission show that so far Lovel Pratt has taken in cash contributions of $9,910. But even she is trailing candidate Lisa Byers from Orcas who has taken in a total of $11,902. The largest individual donor for both Pratt and Byers is Janet Alderton, Board member of the Friends of the San Juans.

Things that make you go hmmmm.

Click to enlarge

Hamburger Flipper Economics - The Candidate Platforms

As has been said here in the past, the average weekly wage in our County is one of the lowest in the State, hovering around $600 per week. The latest figures (1Q2012) place us in the bottom 6 counties in the state at $604 per week.  Also, while unemployment is generally down from its highest levels, most of our new jobs are low-wage jobs. High-wage jobs are being replaced by low-wage jobs, and if we are experiencing any job recovery at all, we are experiencing a low-wage job recovery. The quality of our jobs is moving in the wrong direction.

One of the lowest wage industries is tourism. Tourism creates a low-wage, low-productivity economy. Thirty years ago when running for President, Walter Mondale cautioned us about an economy that consisted of "wrapping hamburgers and sweeping up around Toyotas." Today, that is the grand plan for our county economy envisioned by many of our politicians. They think tourism is our savior, but tourism economics is hamburger-flipper economics. Tourism is heavy on occupations related to food preparation and service, cashiers, and attendants. Look at the eight lowest paying jobs in America, and it reads like the tourism-skewed nightmare that our leaders pitch to us daily.

According to the 2011 state databook for San Juan County, the largest employment sectors here were:

• Government - 25.3% (average weekly wage - $774)
• Wholesale/Retail Trade - 13.9% (average weekly wage - $595 )
• Construction - 13.6% (average weekly wage - $676 )
• Accommodation and Food Services - 11.6% (average weekly wage - $367 )
• Healthcare and Social Assistance - 5.8% (average weekly wage - $527)

By the way, agriculture comprised 1.2% of our economy with a surprisingly high average weekly wage of $727. Real estate (3.6%) had a weekly wage equal to the average. Among all employment sectors, the top weekly wage was earned by Professional Services ($888), and the lowest was earned by Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation ($330).

Note that, besides government, our only top employment sector with an above-average wage (construction) just took it on the chin because of the CAOs. Note, too, that some of our lowest wage employment sectors (accommodation/food service, arts/entertainment/ recreation) are closely linked to tourism. The CAOs discourage nearly every type of economic activity in the San Juans except for tourism.

The just-passed CAOs are the most anti-middle-class, anti-working-class, anti-affordability, anti-people, anti-social-justice laws ever passed in this county. But you never hear CAO supporters admit that. Instead, CAO junkies will continue to falsely claim that they protect our economy and protect family-wage jobs. Don't believe it. It is a lie. Here is Lovel Pratt's press release announcement of her candidacy:

... Pratt recognizes that a strong local economy is key to our community’s sustainability and continued quality of life. She will continue to support and advocate for the infrastructure needed for year-round, family-wage jobs, such as the wireless ordinance. She will continue to support innovative, locally-based solutions that retain local jobs, such as the Lopez Solid Waste District’s and Orcas Recycling Services’ solid waste and recycling services.

Pratt also recognizes that San Juan County’s economy is inextricably connected to the beauty of its environment and the health of its ecosystems.

It is very disingenuous to proclaim support for the local economy when you have just voted to kill it with the CAOs. Beyond buzzwords and platitudes (e.g., sustainability, quality of life, beauty of the environment, health of ecosystems), there is nothing to Pratt's typically vacuous statements.

While you contemplate the economy-killing, low-wage job strategy of our Council members, be aware that the Friends of the San Juans have just today been awarded over $230,000 in new 2013 grants from the state for salmon recovery projects. Other County entities won a further $80,000 in grants. I am sure that news makes your recent $1.6 billion decline in equity much more palatable.

Also, while you contemplate the Council's passage of the largest County budget in history, peruse the benefit plan of County workers, and ask yourself how many other workers in the County might get an equivalent package. I'm not against paying good benefits, but it seems especially ironic that our County government should have among the best pay and benefits package in the islands while our Council pushes economy-killing, low-wage policies on the rest of us.

We Lose, They Win

The Critical Areas Ordinances (CAOs) were not the final act of this Council. They also passed the budget for 2013. We've heard a lot of whining about how poor our County is, but the fact is that the last two budgets passed by this Council have been the largest in history. No County budget has ever been fatter than the 2013 budget. Not by any measure.

The equity of the citizens of the county has just taken a $1.6 billion hit. The Council just passed the most restrictive land use laws ever, with untold consequences on property values and our local economy. We are tee'd up for a Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) update that will make the CAOs look benevolent. Now, we find out that NOAA is resurrecting a plan for "no go" zones on the West Side again.

Creep, creep, creep ... push, push, push ... nibble, nibble, nibble. What is theirs is theirs, and what is ours is for the taking. Government bullies (and their eco-Friends) have completely overrun this place, using bad science as their weapon and "Save the Planet" as their clarion call and their disguise.

Who speaks for the salmon or the sand lances?!? I want to know if anyone will ever listen to The People?

Lollyscramble Economics

A lollyscramble is a down-under word for a festive search for candies. It's a portmanteau of "lollipop" and "scramble." However, it might as well describe the grant-craving economic madness of our County. Like a sweet-craving child, our County government just can't stop thinking about (or chasing) grants, and it has become frequent justification for bad policy. In fact, back in 1990, our Board of County Commissioners originally decided to fully opt into the GMA because of the promise of grants.

And ever since then, we've been chasing after those money-sweetened grant lollies regardless of the unintended consequences. Several current councillors have said that we needed to pass the CAOs because we were missing out on "millions" in grants and loans. Never mind that $1.6 billion in citizen equity was just wiped out because of our latest tax assessment. It is more important to our councillors that we pass draconian, unnecessary environmental restrictions so that our County government can become theoretically eligible for a few million in phantom grants. Ex-Administrator Pete Rose was among the most enthusiastic of Lollyscramblers. As far as Council members go, perhaps no one is a stronger advocate for Lollyscramble economics than Jamie Stephens. Stephens sees "missing millions" like some people see Sasquatch. They're everywhere.

Chasing grant lollies. Is this the economic policy of our County?

The problem with the claim of "missing millions" is that there is precious little to substantiate it. In fact, looking at the available evidence, it seems like a fanciful bout of wishful thinking to believe in "missing millions." Below are three slides of financial data from the County Auditor which were part of a traveling presentation given by some Charter Review Commission (CRC) members. The slides show that our County's total expenditures and the general fund expenditures have grown tremendously. Where is the missing money? Total expenditures have approximately doubled since 2000. The growth in the General Fund has far outstripped inflation. Since the CRC presented these figures, the County has provided updated numbers for 2012 expenditures, and our County government spent more in 2012 than in any other year except 2006 ... the second highest on record. Bubbles may have burst in high tech and the property market, but our County spending just keeps going and going. And the voters approved a new safety tax in 2012 to help out our poor County.

On top of all that spending, the Lollyscramblers hunger for more. Even if we give the Lollyscramblers the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is possible to get millions more, should we take it? Do they think our expenditures should be $100 million per year instead of $50 million? The Lollyscramblers are often the same people who talk about (the specious) rampant population growth here, but the County budget has grown much more explosively than population. As we saw with the solid waste debacle, every revenue solution can be blown to smithereens when there is no authentic desire to control costs. The Lollyscramblers almost always focus on getting more revenue, instead of cost control. In fact, the only thing Lollyscramblers seem hell bent on controlling are the land use practices of we citizens.

The Council passed the CAOs, and they have no idea what the economic impacts are. None.

Updated figures in the 2013 budget document (not reflected in the above graph) show 2012 expenditures north of $50 million for only the second time on record.

Oyster-tecture ... You Talkin' To Me!?!

I have to provide yet one more link about oysters, of the gobsmacking irony variety. As several of the last few posts have explained, the Department of the Interior (DOI) has ordered the shut-down of an oyster farm in California, over alleged adverse environmental impacts.

Now, we find an article that describes a plan to use oysters in New York Harbor to improve the environment. Please follow this link to read more. You won't believe it.

All we can say is that Amy Trainer and Ken Salazar better not find out! Or, maybe after the federal government is done beating up the Lunnys and running them off, perhaps the Lunnys can strike it rich as eco-heroes in the Big Apple for doing the very same thing they were condemned in California for. Give me your tired, your poor, your "eco-criminal" oyster farmers yearning to raise delicious locally raised shellfish.

These little town blues are melting away.  I'll make a brand new start of it in old New York.  If I can make it there, I can make it anywhere ... 

The folks who support the Drakes Bay Oyster Farm have started a petition to overturn the Salazar decision.  Here is the link. Please consider signing. A "permanent" link has been placed in the blog sidebar too.

Their Finger Is On The Button

As we approach the final hearings on the CAO (tomorrow 10:45 am), I feel it is an appropriate time to reacquaint ourselves with our vision statement from our Comprehensive Plan. As was noted in a comment to an earlier post, the preamble says:

WE THE PEOPLE of San Juan County recognize that these rural islands are an extraordinary treasure of natural beauty and abundance, and that independence, privacy and personal freedom are values prized by islanders. Being a diverse people bound together by these shared values, we declare our commitment to work towards this vision of the San Juan Islands in 2020 A.D.

The rest is pretty good too. Read it at this link, and judge for yourself whether we are living up to our common vision.

After you do that, reflect on the miserable quality of the scientific deliberations for the CAOs. Reflect on the baseless, blind ambition to invade islanders' privacy. Reflect on what the CAO restrictions will do to our sustainability, our self-reliance, our independence, and our personal freedom.

One of my favorite Facebook pages goes by the enthusiastic but somewhat improper name of "I Fucking Love Science", which is often abbreviated IFLS. I'll leave you with some of the posters and cartoons from IFLS that have particular resonance with the CAOs.

Okay, this last one is from the Economist, not IFLS.  We may not be Greece exactly, but have you seen the County's debt or the growth of its expenditures while we have frittered away time on the CAOs?

How Do You Spell Money? O-b-f-u-s-c-a-t-i-o-n

Boy, there have been a lot of people talking about money and the economy since Nick Jones came out with his analysis. Sharon Kivisto reported that unemployment is down. Howie Rosenfeld reminisced about Ernie Gann and claimed that there were few jobs here back in the day.  Our Prosecuting Attorney (PA) has an article depicting how underfunded he is, too, relative to other counties. Also, I understand the Journal and sanjuanislander.com are refusing to print letters from citizens who dare to criticize the recent County raises, and yes, the Trojan Heron has confirmation that the raises did happen. In fact, yesterday our Auditor and our Acting County Administrator defended those raises at a Lions Club event on San Juan Island. The Auditor and Administrator said that we had to give out those raises, otherwise we might lose our valued County employees ... they would pack up and go somewhere else.

Let's examine some of these statements by our public officials.

Let's begin with the pay raises. First off, I think someone needs to remind our Acting Administrator that he occupies his current position because his predecessor left to take a lower paying job on the mainland, not a higher paying job. How many County employees, exactly, have left because of low wages here? Name them. I doubt there is a single one. If there are any, compare it to the number of people in our private sector who are out of business or who have left to find a decent wage elsewhere. The compensation analysis done by our County HR Manager was deeply flawed, as is the custom around here. Our HR Manager compared San Juan County salaries to those of other counties, instead of comparing our County employee salaries to the prevailing wage within our County.  Our average weekly wage is one of the four lowest in the state, but we're compensating our County employees as if they lived in an average-wage County. Compared to their neighbors working in the private sector here, our County employees are living large. Too large, and no one in government seems capable of confronting that issue.

On to the Prosecutor's analysis, and I have to say upfront that I believe the Prosecutor's office is probably one of the better run offices in the County, at least from a fiscal perspective. Nevertheless, in his analysis, the PA computes his budget expenditures as a percentage of the overall County budget, which I believe is the wrong way to look at it. Since we have a bloated overall County budget that has expanded rapidly in recent years, a relatively small percentage of that bloated budget can still be an adequately large figure. For example, our PA compares his office to Pacific County (a la Nick Jones), and our PA implies that he has less money than Pacific County. That's not true. He may have a lower percentage of the budget, but he has more actual money. Pacific County's budget is so small (or should I say cost-effective?), and San Juan County's is so bloated, that our PA ends up with more money despite having a lower percentage of our budget. As Nick's analysis showed, our PA's office receives upwards of 30% more in real dollars than his counterpart in Pacific County. The bottom line is that our PA wants you to think in terms of percentages relative to a bloated County base, but his budget is allocated in real dollars, and by that measure, he's not so bad off.

Let's look at unemployment (see figure below) . According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, unemployment here in 1990 was 2.8%. Last year, it was 7.1%. During the summer high season, our unemployment drops, and it currently stands at 6.5%. A look at employment here over the years (see below) looks like a plot from an oscilloscope or a heart monitor because of the dramatic seasonal swings. Our area is historically agricultural and cyclical, and on top of that, we're promoting eco-tourism, which is also highly cyclical. Why are we doing that? Employment here has grown very slowly over the years; unemployment is considerably higher; and there are precious few year-round jobs, except, of course, for our highly compensated government workers. Looking at the graph below, the time period with the least cyclic behavior lasted from 2005 to 2008, during the construction boom. However we might feel about development, it appears to have provided stable year-round employment better than anything else we've done.

The prospects for our economy are grim. Today the Fed announced that our national economy has slowed. On the local front, we're promoting highly cyclical eco-tourism on top of an already sick and cyclical economy. We hardly produce anything here except grant writers, and we're about to pass land use laws that severely restrict the use of one of our fundamental factors of production, land. To top it all off, our County cannot seem to control spending, either on projects or government salaries (or consultants).

We are headed in completely the wrong direction, and our public officials can do nothing but sing the same old tune.

San Juan County Unemployment 1990 to 2012, Bureau of Labor Statistics