Also, I agree, a lot of the blame falls on the former Commish of District 3

I am not blaming individuals.  Personally I like Ted (and Mike and Sharon for that matter).  And a lot of people at the County were involved in the Cimarron decision.  It’s a government at issue, not an individual. 

Well, I am done here.  This could go on forever, and I want to get back to work.  Excuse me if I stop responding....

;-)

pmhayden - 15 August 2008 08:26 PM

No, I only speak for myself. 

But by the time land use applications get to the planning department, they are not really subject to popular vote or administrative whim.  While both the City and County could have done something a few years ago when the rules were being made, Deluxe now has a right to have their application processed by the same rules as anyone else.  It does not mean I like it.  But it is a fact.  I just wish the process had been more transparent, the public had been more involved, and people stood by what they did.

Don’t worry, I only speak for me too.

Things need to be more transparent as well and this dump cannot be located next to S-WHS, no matter how high the burden.  Sadly though, the current government is cowering behind corporate power - even though Skagit County Gov’t offered defense for S-W.

The public is involved now and now we have judicial review.  Sadly though, diplomacy is not being given a chance.

Of course, having a “condemnation conversation” changes things more than a bit…

pmhayden - 15 August 2008 09:01 PM

Also, I agree, a lot of the blame falls on the former Commish of District 3

I am not blaming individuals.  Personally I like Ted.  And a lot of people at the County were involved in the Cimarron decision.  It’s a government at issue, not an individual. 

Well, I am done here.  This could go on forever, and I want to get back to work.  Excuse me if I stop responding....

;-)

That’s okay.  But about Ted, most of Skagit County Gov’t - including the public works director at the time - were anti-Cimarron.

And yeah, I like a lot of what you’re saying.

Quick bump.

It might be worth noting that Mount Vernon and its Community & Economic Development Department led by a former employee of Mr. Berg but at least appears to be much above a “condemnation conversation” is revamping its municipal code on land use, and this effort started in February.

Just as the S-W Deluxe crisis flames started to rise… might be time to go get some details.  6 PM Wednesday Council Economic Development Committee meeting - Continental Place Campus.

Goodnight and good luck.

The most objective and informative post I’ve seen on this Deluxe/SW Recycle issue by PM Hayden, post #17. Explained the whole scenario exactly what happened and now the citizens are trying to get the City to break the law and take away Deluxe’s civil rights. I guess two wrongs make a right. Take away property rights and zone the property wrong in first place years ago next to a high school.

dan litton - 16 August 2008 04:41 PM

The most objective and informative post I’ve seen on this Deluxe/SW Recycle issue by PM Hayden, post #17. Explained the whole scenario exactly what happened and now the citizens are trying to get the City to break the law and take away Deluxe’s civil rights. I guess two wrongs make a right. Take away property rights and zone the property wrong in first place years ago next to a high school.

Civil rights?!?!?

HA!

Had the City required an EIS instead of a MDNS + not had a “condemnation conversation"… maybe there wouldn’t be appearance of fairness doctrine issues.  Now, that’s a “civil rights” violation!

Skagitonian1982 - 16 August 2008 06:55 PM

dan litton - 16 August 2008 04:41 PM

The most objective and informative post I’ve seen on this Deluxe/SW Recycle issue by PM Hayden, post #17. Explained the whole scenario exactly what happened and now the citizens are trying to get the City to break the law and take away Deluxe’s civil rights. I guess two wrongs make a right. Take away property rights and zone the property wrong in first place years ago next to a high school.

Civil rights?!?!?

HA!

Had the City required an EIS instead of a MDNS + not had a “condemnation conversation"… maybe there wouldn’t be appearance of fairness doctrine issues.  Now, that’s a “civil rights” violation!

Let’s talk about appearance of fairness doctrine and Ken Dalstedt and his family trust owning and benefiting from their trash spur at the County’s Ovenell dump. That’s not an appearance it is a conflict of interest that nobody gives a hoot about. Let the process with Deluxe go thru Judge Castleberry and we’ll see if Deluxe has to do a EIS. So Deluxe has to do a EIS, do you think that will stop them?

dan litton - 17 August 2008 09:37 PM

Skagitonian1982 - 16 August 2008 06:55 PM

dan litton - 16 August 2008 04:41 PM

The most objective and informative post I’ve seen on this Deluxe/SW Recycle issue by PM Hayden, post #17. Explained the whole scenario exactly what happened and now the citizens are trying to get the City to break the law and take away Deluxe’s civil rights. I guess two wrongs make a right. Take away property rights and zone the property wrong in first place years ago next to a high school.

Civil rights?!?!?

HA!

Had the City required an EIS instead of a MDNS + not had a “condemnation conversation"… maybe there wouldn’t be appearance of fairness doctrine issues.  Now, that’s a “civil rights” violation!

Let’s talk about appearance of fairness doctrine and Ken Dalstedt and his family trust owning and benefiting from their trash spur at the County’s Ovenell dump. That’s not an appearance it is a conflict of interest that nobody gives a hoot about. Let the process with Deluxe go thru Judge Castleberry and we’ll see if Deluxe has to do a EIS. So Deluxe has to do a EIS, do you think that will stop them?

1) As a Republican, go ahead & tell me more about Commish Dahlstedt.  As a fan of term limits, I think he has to go - I’d prefer Mt. Vernon Councilman Dale Ragan for starters, but Don Gordon will have to suffice (sigh).  I also ‘give a hoot’ about any unfairness in gov’t.

2) I think an EIS will put huge burdens of cost and responsibility upon Deluxe, if not stopping them or causing a relocation (and I’d prefer the latter).  It will also calm the waters quite a bit arguably and possibly help find a solution conducive to the school district’s interests of nondisruption to the learning environment.  I lost my neutrality on this between the “condemnation conversation” and the issue of disruption to the learning environment.  If Larry Medvedev, excuse me, Larry McCarter and Steve Snell really gave a hoot about the community they’d start by supporting an EIS instead of proposing a tree farm.

dan (and timewarp):

Thought you should read this:

Let’s say for the sake of argument that the Deluxe plant near the High School would be a good idea and embraced by the majority (it isn’t and it isn’t), the one thing that I will never understand is how the S-W City Council can claim that it was an open process beginning in the Spring of 2007. If it were an open process, Superintendent Mark Venn and the S-W School Board would have been approached by the City Council well ahead of the Monday meeting in which the decision was made by the Council to give the decision to the County. You don’t alienate a community partner in charge of the health and well-being of that community’s children.

SOURCE: Fletch F. Fletch

Just thought you’d like to hear somebody else’s opinion.

Let me spell this out for you: Our democracy is under assault.

Just as the bombs on Georgia say “This is for NATO"… The attack upon Skagit County by Deluxe and its puppet S-W Gov’t say very clearly: “THIS IS FOR THE SOLID WASTE GOVERNANCE BOARD”, “THIS IS FOR COMMISSIONER SHARON DILLON”, “THIS IS FOR SEDRO-WOOLLEY SCHOOLS” and of course “THIS IS FOR SKAGIT COUNTY”.

We are all targets in this conflict, from Marblemount to Anacortes, from Alger to Lake McMurray, we are all at the wrong ends of the “condemnation conversation” and the litigation.

If we are condemned, we will be condemned to a private monopoly (just imagine WSF under control of a private company - oh, that’s right today’s WSF was the 1940s Black Ball Line and that crumbled) and no Solid Waste Governance Board to democraticize the solid waste stream.

So I hope you two - and the other strident critics - realize what is at stake here.  It’s democracy, public education and your taxdollars!

Since I posted two or three statements on this forum board about the Sedro-Woolley / Deluxe issue, the off-line feedback tells me that my point could be made more clearly.  It was not my intention to publicly take sides in this dispute.

The point I was making is that this issue is complex, and has a history.  Past decisions made by both the City of SW and Skagit County have limited the choices that are now available to our current elected representatives.  It makes sense to work backwards to the origins of this problem, and to see it as the technical and historic issue it is, rather than cast it as a conflict of personalities, which it is not. 

We look to our elected representatives and appointed officials to raise the level of debate to one of policy, technical issues, and cost/benefit analysis.  Governments owe it to taxpayers to maintain a level of discourse that is rational and respectful.  They do this by focusing on legal merits, economics, and policy issues, rather than individual personalities.

One of the dangers of reducing civic issues to personalities is that personal conflicts will obscure the public policy issues and make it harder to build a public consensus.  Personal disputes do exist in this matter, perhaps with cause, but public documents show that they are gaining momentum.  In the long run they will prevent rational discussion, compromise, and good faith negotiations. 

There is room for a negotiated solution; for example, the County could allow Deluxe to be sited elsewhere.  Alternatively, there is nothing wrong with both sides making their best arguments to a judge, and accepting the court’s decision with grace and respect.  Whatever happens, everyone needs to be able to have a cup of coffee together after the decision is made. This too will pass.  There will be other issues that will require us all to be on the same side.

pmhayden - 21 August 2008 06:38 PM

Since I posted two or three statements on this forum board about the Sedro-Woolley / Deluxe issue, the off-line feedback tells me that my point could be made more clearly.  It was not my intention to publicly take sides in this dispute.

The point I was making is that this issue is complex, and has a history.  Past decisions made by both the City of SW and Skagit County have limited the choices that are now available to our current elected representatives.  It makes sense to work backwards to the origins of this problem, and to see it as the technical and historic issue it is, rather than cast it as a conflict of personalities, which it is not. 

We look to our elected representatives and appointed officials to raise the level of debate to one of policy, technical issues, and cost/benefit analysis.  Governments owe it to taxpayers to maintain a level of discourse that is rational and respectful.  They do this by focusing on legal merits, economics, and policy issues, rather than individual personalities.

One of the dangers of reducing civic issues to personalities is that personal conflicts will obscure the public policy issues and make it harder to build a public consensus.  Personal disputes do exist in this matter, perhaps with cause, but public documents show that they are gaining momentum.  In the long run they will prevent rational discussion, compromise, and good faith negotiations. 

There is room for a negotiated solution; for example, the County could allow Deluxe to be sited elsewhere.  Alternatively, there is nothing wrong with both sides making their best arguments to a judge, and accepting the court’s decision with grace and respect.  Whatever happens, everyone needs to be able to have a cup of coffee together after the decision is made. This too will pass.  There will be other issues that will require us all to be on the same side.

First, I deeply appreciate your comments.  Thank you for your insight.

That said, among other things in today’s doc dump (helps when the alternative is a public records request) is a very good explanation why your good intentions aren’t exactly feasible: Mr. Berg inquired, “The County has offered to intervene and help defend the City in the event the City gets sued as a result
of the proposed settlement. Is the County willing to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City from that potential lawsuit?” The County response is below:

1. This would violate the County’s insurance coverage. It would also remove any incentive for the City of Sedro-Woolley to actively participate in its own defense, because the County would be responsible for doing all the defending, and the County would be 100% liable for paying any liability. While the County will mount a vigorous defense against any challenge to the settlement, it is important that Sedro-Woolley is properly motivated to proactively assist in that effort. That incentive would go away if the County accepted defense and indemnity obligations as you propose below.
2. The County assuming defense and indemnity obligations would be particularly problematic under the facts since City staff seems to have relied on information from Deluxe and its consultant, Skagit Surveyors and Engineers, in reaching various determinations about the Deluxe proposal that is inconsistent with the law.  Skagit Surveyors would seem to have potential liability to Deluxe as a result, and the owner of that consulting firm is a Sedro-Woolley City Councilman who has been heavily involved in solid waste issues both on behalf of the City and his client. This is simply not a situation in which it makes sense for the County to assume a blanket defense and indemnity obligation.

Arguably, we do have to discuss individuals in this crisis.  Not to smear individuals per se, but rather impugn lack of sound judgment in wondering perhaps electing Mr. Requa to the City Council was one of the worst things S-W has done, ever - if for no other reason than the conflict of interest demolition derby he is sadly trapped in.  Perhaps having Ted Anderson as county commissioner for too long & certainly not stopping privatization was a mistake (but then again, I was never a fan of his).  Perhaps having the City Attorney & Administrator of S-W create liability like magic and advise his client through KBRC says much about who he truly is.

My point is: It’s important to hold politicians accountable.  You really want civility?!?  Okay, tell S-W City Government to stop this “Circus de Solei: Skagitonian Edition”.  While you are doing His work - might want to have S-W request Skagit County buy the Deluxe site to sell to the school district.

Perhaps its time we asked ourselves ten fundamental questions:

#1. Is it appropriate for a City Councilman to be working as both a Councilman and CEO of a surveying firm that does much business operations with the City Gov’t of Sedro-Woolley?

#2. Is it appropriate for a City Attorney to advise his clients via KBRC and Skagit Valley Publishing’s tools/sub-businesses/outlets/brands?

#3. Is it appropriate for a Mayor to lobby on May 21, 2007 for a facility starting at 52:18 of link the city government would have to give permits to in December of 2007?  Isn’t this why we have Chambers of Commerce - to, among other things, help business interlace with government to make sure government at all levels remains a referee and not interfere with the free market (thank you to the late President Ronald Reagan for the idea)?

#4. Is it appropriate to put industrial traffic, let alone an industrial site, across from a high school with many students with learning disabilities?

#5. Is it appropriate for a City Council, Mayor and City Administrator to openly ignore an angry, unified community and a County Government with the moxie to stand with them for once?

#6. Is it appropriate for a Hearing Examiner Pro Tem who in other jurisdictions has taken public testimony to deny that to S-W?

#7. Is it appropriate for a City Government and a corporation to impose policy upon an entire county without its consultation, not to mention consent at the threat of a zillion Su-25 Frogfoots (okay litigation and more)?

#8. Is is appropriate for a City Government to put a facility next to a high school without the EIS the school district has requested?

#9. Is it appropriate for a corporation to bully a community, and then that community’s government to succumb without a fight?

#10. Is it appropriate for a City Administrator to have a “condemnation conversation”?

Just wondering how people would react…