SVCR-0163-JollyRogers-770x150-012616-CW.png

The Gristle

Coalescence
  • Google+

COALESCENCE: Is there a statement of principles the People of Bellingham might issue in response to plans to ship tens of millions of tons of climate-changing coal through the city each year to Asian markets?

A group of activists think so; and they submitted more than 6,500 initiative signatures to the Whatcom County Auditor this week in the hopes of placing such a statement, a Community Bill of Rights, in front of Bellingham voters this November. The initiative declares as a unifying principle that local values of ordinary people trump those of distant corporations and seeks, as its central proposition, to prohibit the transport of coal through Bellingham.

More than 140 communities across the country have initiated similar measures, driven to action by corporate extraction schemes that subordinate local control and local proprty rights.

Bellingham’s version amounts to an audacious statement of principle, and one with several significant and perplexing hurdles to clear.

First is the issue of sufficiency. Petitioners gathered more than 9,200 signatures; however, at least a third of those are understood not to be valid to place a citizen’s referendum on the city’s ballot. The reason, organizers claim, is that many Whatcom residents wanted to speak on the issue, not all of whom are registered to vote inside Bellingham city limits.

Organizers gathered on the steps of City Hall this week to celebrate their effort while city policymakers gathered inside to discuss the thornier aspects of their response.

The arc of citizen initiatives is well understood in Bellingham: An initiative is proposed. It gets challenged in court by some resistant party. A judge finds that the public’s desires exceed the scope of the public’s legislative authority, but the judge does not want to impede or comment upon the public’s right to direct democracy. The initiative limps on to the ballot without the weight of law, as an advisory and a passive thermometer of public opinion.

In years past, the City of Bellingham was frequently the petitioner that challenged the merits of the initiative in court, believing the city might be legally exposed if it did not actively resist an improper referendum. In recent years, Bellingham City Council has taken a more circumspect approach and, like the judges themselves, have allowed measures (such as last year’s red light camera initiative) to drift on to the ballot unmolested and uncommented upon.

The Community Bill of Rights poses peculiar and vexing questions for COB. It requires, for example, that the city shall initiate lawsuits to stop the transport of coal through the city. It therefore legislates that COB will expose itself to unknown legal costs.

The Community Bill of Rights also poses peculiar and vexing questions for the courts, for clearly commerce, interstate transportation, international export and energy policy are federal matters beyond the scope of citizen redress through municipal initiative. While local judges have, in the past, stepped aside to allow such redress on the ballot, the measure is so clearly beyond municipal scope and authority it may be struck before it even reaches the polls.

City Council agreed that this time COB must actively challenge the initiative. Mayor Kelli Linville, too, does not believe the initiative will withstand a legal challenge.

Council member Michael Lilliquist, while expressing sympathy for the referendum’s aims, said the proposal appears to violate not only the city charter, but state and federal law, as well as clear authority granted in the Constitution. Others on council agreed.

One of the sponsors of the initiative, Stoney Bird, defended the Community Bill of Rights in front of a tough audience last week, the hyper-conservative Northwest Business Club. Yet even within that group is a spark of sympathy that recognizes our federal system is rigged for predetermined outcomes that thwart local control and the sovereignty of citizens.

Formerly a corporate lawyer, Bird illustrated how the responses and “allowable remedies” of citizens are boxed in on every side by the permitting process—a process, as the phrase itself implies, designed to issue a final permit after limited concerns are offset or mitigated. The box is hardened on nearly every side by case law and Supreme Court rulings, some dating back to the 19th Century, on the primacy of a federated republic of states, the inviolate nature of commerce and transportation, and even the rights of corporations as citizens under the Constitution. A civil rights initiative that argues Nature is not private property is perhaps the only strategy left uncrushed by mountains of legal proceedings.

Paul Guppy, vice president of research for the conservative think tank Washington Policy Center, was invited by NWBC to comment on Bird’s presentation.

Guppy warned the initiative “proposes fundamental changes in city government by extending legal rights to plants, animals, air, soil and water, and then giving any Bellingham resident the right to sue on their behalf. There’s a financial incentive for lawyers because the losing party could be ordered to pay all legal costs, without limit.”

Kathy Bovencamp, formerly the government affairs director for the Building Industry Association, commented at the NWBC forum that, whatever its merits or deficiencies, the Community Bill of Rights offers the public a vote on the coal issue. The public wants that.

“This is Bellingham,” she said. “Bellingham wants to vote on coal. It’s a shame this is the only thing that will be on the ballot for voters to consider in November.”

Hers was a prescient remark.

If Bellingham City Council succeeds in kicking the Community Bill of Rights from the ballot, council should have an alternate to place before voters. Such a referendum would yield key, precinct-level demographics of support and intensity on the coal issue and provide data for months of informed policy.

You can’t just kick it from the ballot, Council. You have to propose something of your own.


blog comments powered by Disqus

 

Past Columns

February 3, 2016

FICTIONS IN COLLISION: Whatcom County Council held a long and crowded, rancorous session on the update of the county’s Comprehensive Plan last week. The Comp Plan update is intended to… more »

January 27, 2016

‘YOU HAD ONE JOB’: Two weeks into their short 2016 session, and the Washington State Legislature is already bogged down. The 60-day session is ordinarily designed for adjustments to the… more »

January 20, 2016

A MATTER OF CONVICTION: Problems with the jail did not end when voters rejected a proposal to construct a new justice facility in November; in fact, the problems are just… more »

January 13, 2016

GO ASK ALICE: A groundbreaking study released this week finds that nearly one in three households in the Pacific Northwest struggles to afford basic standards of living, a remarkable commentary… more »

January 6, 2016

ALL CHARGED UP, NO GAS: A new year begins, and with it the oaths of office and the swearing ceremonies of new public officials elected last November. Among these, the… more »

December 30, 2015

AULD ACQUAINTANCE FORGOT: Will 2016 be the year Whatcom County finally achieves compliance with the Growth Management Act, enacted a quarter of a century ago? Perhaps; but it’s doubtful.

Whatcom… more »

December 23, 2015

COAL IN YOUR STOCKING: ’Tis the season for retail sales. Following that, the weakened Canadian dollar coupled with the closure of a major industry and its associated payroll could send… more »

December 16, 2015

Farewell: At the end of their legislative year, city and county councils took time to bid farewell to extraordinary departing members with whom they’ve collaborated and (at times, and with… more »

December 9, 2015

HOLDING PATTERNS: Fallout continues from the county’s calamitous failure to pass a funding package for additional corrections capacity. A 0.2 percent sales and use tax to construct a new facility… more »

Cascadia Weekly

Home | Views | | Archives | Advertising | Contact | RSS

© 1998-2016 Cascadia Newspaper Company LLC | P.O. Box 2833, Bellingham WA 98227-2833 | (360) 647-8200