Peter Goldmark's Opponent Raking in Timber and Mining Money

Peter Goldmark is the Democrat running for Public Lands Commissioner in Washington state. Goldmark leads in raising money over his Republican opponent Doug Sutherland, the incumbent. But the two campaigns are drawing money from very different donors.

Sutherland's campaign is awash in special interest money from timber and mining companies. His donor list reads like a who who in the resource extraction business, whether it be trees or minerals.

Peter Goldmark has raised over $418,667.81 in cash and in kind contributions. Doug Sutherland has raised $353,121.40.

A breakdown of Sutherland's contributions finds some 219 contributions from timber and timber related interests contributing a total of $145,809. This comprises 41.5% of Sutherland's contributions. This is a conservative figure because not all contributors were identified as to their employer or their occupation. State law, for example, does not require this disclosure on contributions under $100 total.

Some of Sutherland's larger timber associated contributors include:

Buse Timber & Sales (Everett, WA) $1600
John D Crow, Chairman, Green Crow (Port Angeles,WA) $3200
Freres Lumber Company, Inc (Lyons, RI) $3200
Hampton Lumber Sales (Portland, OR) $1600
Roseburg Forest Products (Roseburg, OR) $1600
RSG Forest Products, INC (Kalama, WA) $3200
Janes Warjone, Chairman, Port Blakely Tree Farms, LP (Seattle, WA) $3200
Zip O Log Mills (Eugene, OR) $1600
George Emerson, Manager Sierra Pacific Industries (Bella Vista, CA) $1400
Bob Lewis, Manager Columbia Vista Corp (Vancouver, WA) $2800
Murphy Hardwood Plywood Division (Eugene, OR) $1400
Murray Pacific (Tacoma, WA) $1400
Rayonier (Hoquiam, WA) $2800
SDS Company (Bingen, WA) $2800
Sierra Pacific Industries (Redding, CA) $2800
Simpson (Tacoma, WA) $1400
Weyerhauser (Olympia, WA) $1400
George and Wendy Weyerhauser (Lakewood, WA) $2800
American Forest Land Company, LLC (Ellensburg, WA) $1300
Green Crow (Port Angeles, WA) $2300
Columbia Cedar (Kettle Falls, WA) $1200
Forest Capital Partners (Boston, MA) $1200
Georgia Pacific Financial Management LLC (Jackonville, FL) $1200
Port Blakely Tree Farms LP (Seattle, WA) $2500
Murphy Hardwood Plywood Division (Eugene, OR) $1000
Plum Creek Administrative Corp (Columbia Falls, MT) $1000
Starfire Lumber (Cottage Grove, OR) $1000
Stimson Lumber Company Coeur D'alene, ID) $1000
Seneca Jones Timber Company (Eugene, OR) $2600

Another prominent source of contributions has come from mining and mineral extraction interests which do business with the DNR.

Echo Bay Minerals (Republic, WA) $1600
Tim Spraldin, owner Spraldin Rock Products (Hoquiam, WA) $1600
Asphalt Paving Association (Seattle, WA) $1400
Glacier Northwest (Seattle, WA) $2800
WA Aggregates & Concrete Association (Des Moines, WA) $2800
Cadman Heidelberg Cement Group (Redmond, WA) $1000
Kinross (gold mining) (Oroville, WA) $1000
Lakeside Industries ("asphalt, heavy highway construction") (Issaquah, WA) $1000

The Commissioner of Public Lands oversees leasing and management of tidelands in Puget Sound and waterways on public DNR lands. Various shellfish and other seafood interests have also given to Sutherland. These include:

Northwest Marine Trade Association (Seattle, WA) $2200
Washington Geoduck Association (Bainbridge Island, WA) $1000
Bill Taylor, owner Taylor Shellfish (Olympia, WA) $750
Alaska Ice Seafoods (Bainbridge Island,WA) $500
Chelsea Farms LLC Olympia, WA) $500
Coast Seafoods Company (South Bend, WA) $500
William F Dewey, owner Taylor Shellfish (Shelton, WA) $500
Intertidal Farms (Olympia, WA) $500
Penn Cove Shellfish (Coupeville, WA) $500
Seattle Shellfish LLC (Olympia, WA) $500
Earl Steele Owner Rock Point Oyster Co. (Quilcene, WA) $500
Paul Taylor ,owner Taylor Shellfish (Olympia, WA) $500

Another source of contributions for Sutherland has been from energy and oil companies, particularly ones interested in leasing sites for wind power:

ConocoPhillips (Sacramento, CA) $1000
Iberdrola Renewables (Portland, OR) $900
MPC Shareholders Fund (Tacoma, WA) $900
Puget Sound Energy (Bellevue, WA) $1600
Pacific Power/Rocky Mountain Power (Portland, OR) $ 800
ENXCO(wind) (Carlsbad, CA) $600
BP North America Employee PAC (Warrenfield, IL) $500
TESORO Companies, Inc (San Antonio, TX) $ 500
Daren Huseby, Brookfield Power (wind)(Portland, OR) $300
David W McClain VP Everpower Renewables Corp (Beaverton, OR) $300
Dana Peck, developer, Horizon Wind Energy(Goldendale, WA) $300
James Walker,wind industry, self employed (Carlsbad, CA) $300

Seventeen people listed as employees of the Department of Natural Resources which the Commissioner of Public Lands oversees have given $11,200.

By contrast almost all of Peter Goldmark's contributions have come from individuals. The only two exceptions are 6 contributions( including two in kind) totalling $46,577.02 from the Wa ST Democratic Central Committee and fourteen contributions from labor unions totaling $12,800.
Labor contributions to Peter Goldmark include:

Electrical Workers #46 PAC (Kent, WA) $1600
Sheet Metal Workers Local 66 (Kirkland, WA) $1600
Watate Construction and Building Trades Council (Olympia, WA) $1600
Washington Education Association (Federal Way, WA) $1600
IBEW Local 77 PAC (Seattle, WA) $1000
IBEW Local 76 (Tacoma, WA) $1000
Washington Teamsters Legislative League (Tukwila, WA) $2000
Washington State Labor Council (Seattle, WA) $800
IBEW Local 112 PAC (Kennewick, WA) $700
Amalgamated Transit Union (Seattle, WA) $ 300

Individual donors contributing $3200 included Julie Edsforth and David Tagney Jones.
Inslee for Congress gave $3000 and Peter Goldman $2800, Martha Kongsgaard $2800.
More individual donors can be seen on the PDC's website.

Note - This contribution analysis is based on donors to both campaigns as available on July 13, 2008 on the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission's website at http://www.pdc.wa.gov/.
Also for the record I have donated a total of $65 to the Peter Goldmark campaign.
Steve Zemke

Eyman's Initiative 985 Adds $290 Million to State Budget for Road Building

Rather than solving any budget problems it appears that Eyman's latest initiative gimmick will add another $290 million dollars to the currently projected $2.7 billion state budget deficit. A cutesy sound bite to end traffic congestion helped Eyman to buy enough signatures to most likely get the measure on the November ballot.

Hidden away in the Initiative 985 fine print is its real purpose - dedicate more money to road building while opposing its use for park and ride lots, or bike paths or buses or transit.

Unfortunately what paid signature gatherers getting paid by the signature never do is explain the fine print on the back of the initiative and what it will mean to taxpayers. And unfortunately not many voters take the time to ask what the initiative really does before they sign.

And if they did ask they wouldn't have gotten the truth because Eyman wasn't about to tell anyone that the real intent of Initiative 985 is to dedicate more money to road building. The State's gas tax is already pledged to fund highways by the Washington State Constitution and Eyman wants to add even more to the pot to build more roads.

Petition signers are a pretty gullible lot, usually signing to put a complex measure onto the ballot without taking the time to read it. Eyman's measures in the past have frequently been poorly written and have been frequently overturned in court. Many times their true impact is hidden away in the fine print

One reason for this is, unlike a bill in the state legislature, initiatives never have to stand up to the scrutiny of public hearings and revisions like most bills passed by the state legislature go through. They are never vetted by the public before they are on the street for signatures. Eyman's initiatives are special interest legislation written mostly with an eye to keeping Eyman's initiative business afloat and to promote his personal ideology.

This year his sugar daddy backed out of underwriting what has become a half million dollar business of paying to collect the signatures necessary to get a place on the ballot. Eyman took out a loan against his house to help underwrite his initiative mill business.

Initiative 985 sets up a dedicated fund, taking 15% of taxes on on new and used cars, toll fees above costs and red light camera fines that went into the general fund and commits this money only to Eyman's traffic congestion (road building) fund. Such dedicated funds removes the flexibility to deal with changing priorities and needs, particularly in times of budget deficits like we are now in. It avoids the public scrutiny of the legislative budget process.

Eyman is trying to sell the initiative's main purpose as opening up car pool lanes and synchronizing traffic lights but just how much money can you spend synchronizing traffic lights and opening up carpool lanes once you set them up?

Just how many tow trucks can taxpayers pay for? Not that many, because that's not the real purpose of the initiative. Hidden away in the fine print of the initiative is it's real purpose.

Eyman says that once you pay for synchronizing traffic lights, opening up car pool lanes and increasing emergency vehicles, that the money (estimated to be $145 million per year) be spent for "any other purpose which reduces traffic congestion by reducing vehicle delay by expanding road capacity and general purpose use to improve traffic flow for all vehicles".

Eyman continues that "Purposes to improve traffic flow for all vehicles do not include creating, maintaining or operating bike paths or lanes, wildlife crossings, landscaping, park and ride lots, ferries, trolleys, buses, monorail, light rail or heavy rail." This is a quote from the initiative wording on the back of the initiative most people never read. Normally one would include these measures as ways to reduce congestion. But not Tim Eyman.

O.K now maybe you understand this initiative . It's simple. It's to build more roads for cars. Eyman's trying to sell the initiative as opening carpool lanes and synchronizing traffic lights to reduce traffic congestion but once that's done the bulk of the money can only be used to buy more asphalt or concrete "to expand road capacity." and "improve traffic flow" The money can not be shifted for other purposes.

The initiative appropriates all monies from red light traffic cameras and toll costs beyond collection to road building. It appropriates 15% of all car fees collected by the state. And it can only be spent "to expand road capacity" and "improving traffic flow."

Initiative 985 is the lazy man's non-thinking approach to transportation problems. It blames poorly timed traffic lights and car pool lanes and not enough tow trucks as the problem. Maybe the real problem is too many people driving single occupancy vehicles. Building more roads only puts us in competition with Los Angeles style sprawl.

With rising gas prices that are likely to go even higher, people need less expensive alternatives and less polluting to getting around. Eyman's proposed dedicated money for more roads would be better spent on reducing transportation miles traveled by promoting more carpooling and van pooling, more bike lanes and sidewalks and better public transit. The real issue facing us is how to reduce transportation vehicle miles traveled that contribute to global warming, not putting more cars on the road.

There is only so much money to go around and dedicating $290 million dollars every two years to building more roads for more car travel in a time of rising gasoline prices and increasing global warming seems a terribly misplaced priority.

Too bad people don't take the time to read what they are really signing. Eyman is trying to pull a fast one here.

Building more roads is not the answer to traffic congestion, yet that is what the bulk of the money will be limited to if voters pass Initiative 985. Voters just need to say no to Tim Eyman and Initiative 985!

see also:

Floyd J McKay, Seattle Times 4/16/2008 "Tim Eyman's traffic initiative is bogus "

Chris Mulick, TriCityHerald 7/6/2008 "2 initiatives could bungle state budget"

Republicans Recycle Rovian Rhetoric in Attack Ad on Obama

The Republican Party is out to try to fool the American public again. Remember compassionate conservatism? With John McCain -the Republican Party is trying to sell us more snake oil in the form of an attack ad on Obama that touts McCain's "balanced" energy plan and accuses Obama of "no new solutions". In reality MCCain is the one with no new solutions.

According to the first major ad by the Republican National Committee supposedly done independently of the McCain Campaign, McCain's going to solve our energy problems now with a "balanced" plan that pushes "more production at home". This translates to opening up our beaches and coastline for off shore oil drilling and more nuclear power plants for which there still is no long term solution to dealing with the nuclear waste.

And he's still touting his pandering proposal to suspend the Federal gas tax this summer, which unfortunately would remove money for repairing decaying roads and bridges. Of course such an approach would encourage people to drive more, not less, which is counter to his professed concern about "a climate in crisis" Drilling for more oil and suspending needed gas taxes are retro proposals from the Bush Era that are not real solutions to our energy and climate problems.

Of course the Republican ad campaign slips in the words "alternative energy and conservation" sort of like politicians slip in the words "God bless America" when ever they can but let's look at the record. McCain has offered no new solutions to the energy problem - just a recycling of old Republican campaign tactics of mouthing vague generalities that may have some resonance with the public but which lack specifics to really evaluate.

For example the Detroit Free Press recently reported on McCain"s plan for fuel efficiency for cars and trucks. They noted that "the Republican's proposals lacked key details" and that his "comments lead to confusion".

"McCain said that to boost development of hybrids and electric vehicles, he would launch a $300-million award for a battery pack "that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars."

The senator offered no other details, leaving some observers confused about his intent. There are no commercially available plug-in hybrid vehicles today, and the few electric vehicles on the market range from low-power minicars using traditional batteries to the Tesla Roadster, a $100,000 two-seater that uses lithium-ion cells found in computers and other devices.

The McCain campaign said the point of his proposals was to spur change, and that the method for meeting whatever goals he would set for the industry was less important.

"John McCain is not interested in knowing the details of the fuels that go in" to vehicles "and the technologies that process them," said adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin. "What matters is: Do you get effective transportation with low carbon emissions coming out the tailpipe? Let the best technologies, the smartest invention, win."

Sounds like John McCain supports the free market approach - no surprise here, but that's what got us into the mess we're in now. Change just for the sake of change is not what we need. One prime example is that we are now coming to realize that increased ethanol production can come with a lot of other problems, like increased costs for food. We need to understand the consequences of what we do so that we can make better choices. We need a President and Administration that understands that.

The free market approach, like John McCain espouses, works to optimize profits for corporations. Unfortunately corporate interests often conflict with national interests like conservation of fuels and resources for sustainability, reduced dependence on foreign oil and shifting to a carbon free economy that reduces global warming impacts. We need a President that works to promote the interests and well being of all the the citizens of our country, not just the profits of big corporations.

Just as John McCain is no economist he is also not an engineer or a scientist. John McCain's voting record on energy and environmental issues is dismal. While most Democrats assume decisive action needs to be taken to deal with global warming , John McCain is getting a special break with the Press and Media because he is a Republican exposing some of these views.

Yet McCain's voting record really belies this supposed message of someone looking for solutions. John McCain's lifetime voting record with the League of Conservation Voters is just 26%. By contrast Ron Paul's lifetime average is 30%.

Barack Obama's League of Conservation Voter record is 96%. Hillary Clinton's lifetime average was 90%. Dennis Kucinich's was 92%.

You can also view a comparison of Obama's and McCains positions on energy done by Bob Deans of the Cox News Service at the Dayton Daily News. While John McCain proposes reducing carbon emissions by 60% by 2050, Barack Obama proposes reducing them by 80%. While Barack Obama proposes a target of 25% of our electricity needs being met by renewable energy by 2025, John McCain would rather we commit to building 45 nuclear power plants by 2030.

Another way of viewing McCain and Obama's commitment to energy and environmental issues is to view how they responded to votes in Congress, including missed votes while they were campaigning. As the Center for American Progress's Action Fund notes, John McCain has a poor record on Energy and Global Warming issues. They note that on numerous occasions McCain voted for legislation supporting big oil companies and against renewable energy and increased efficiency standards.

McCain for example had an opportunity to cast a decisive vote in 2007 for renewable energy legislation but sided with Big Oil. As the Center for American Progress notes:

In 2007, McCain was the only senator who failed to vote on a motion to invoke
cloture (thus limiting debate) on the Energy Independence and Security Act. This
vote was about whether to close $13 billion in tax breaks for major oil and gas
companies to invest in new clean energy technologies such as wind and solar, and
efficiency. Sixty votes were required for passage. The motion was rejected
59-40. [CQ.com; HR 6, Vote #425

One needs only to look at the record to realize McCain's spoken word of wanting energy security and energy independence and conservation and on and on is only hot air and lacks substance. His actual voting record and missed opportunities to make a difference speak louder than anything else. McCain is at heart a Republican and Republicans as a whole are beholden to big corporations and big oil.

The only change McCain is doing is running away from previous positions like opposing off shore oil drilling which gave him some independence from most other conservative Republicans. To win the election he believes he has to cater to traditional Republican conservative voters. As such he is giving up his name brand maverick positions.

McCain is becoming just another conservative, knee jerk reacting to the problems facing America and uttering platitudes. We need fresh ideas and a new vision and leadership to solve our energy problems and respond to global warming. McCain unfortunately will take us back to the past when it is the future we need to deal with.

Seattle City Council Passes Tree Grove Protection Resolution

The full Seattle City Council on Monday , June 30, 2008 unanimously passed Resolution 31065 to help protect the remaining tree groves in the city of Seattle from being cut down. The resolution is an attempt to clarify the city's current tree protection policies which are very weak and have only emphasized protection of exceptional individual trees.

The city has continued to lose tree cover . Between 1973 and now the city's tree canopy has gone from 40% to 18%. The Council is trying to reverse this situation by protecting existing trees and planting new trees. Two recent proposed projects have pointed out the weakness and flaw in the past city tree policies.

A Seattle School District renovation proposal at Ingraham High School in North Seattle to add new classrooms to replace portables threatens some 62 Douglas fir, western red cedar and madrone trees that are over 75 years old. The School District without public input decided to build the new addition in the grove of trees rather than around the corner on the North side of the school where an open lawn exists.

In the Maple Leaf community in North Seattle neighbors are fighting cutting down most of a grove of old trees at the former site of the Waldo Hospital. The old hospital is being razed and a block of houses is being put on the site.

Below is the Resolution passed by the Seattle City Council.

A RESOLUTION requesting the Director of the Department of Planning and Development to submit legislation to extend the City's tree protection efforts to include groves or groups of trees or other vegetation that are determined to have substantial ecological, educational, or economic value and to update existing Director's Rules in support of these efforts.

WHEREAS, Section 25.05.675(N) of the Seattle Municipal Code allows for preservation of trees as mitigation when a project would reduce or damage rare, uncommon, unique or exceptional plant or wildlife habitat, wildlife travelways, or habitat diversity for species of substantial aesthetic, education, ecological or economic value; and

WHEREAS, Director's Rule 06-2001 focuses on individual trees and how the SEPA policy interacts with SMC chapter 25.11, the Tree Protection Ordinance, which also focuses on individual trees; and

WHEREAS, the language of Section 25.05.675(N) is not restricted to preserving single trees nor does it suggest restricting mitigation to a single tree; and

WHEREAS, the policy intent of the Council, as stated in SMC 25.05.675(N)(1)(a), is to have decision makers mitigate impacts resulting from the loss of plant or wildlife habitat, wildlife travelways, or habitat diversity for species of substantial aesthetic, educational, ecological, or economic value; and

WHEREAS, development impacts in the City have significantly contributed to a reduction of our urban tree canopy from 40% in 1972 to 18% today, as documented in the City's Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) completed by the Office of Sustainability and Environment in 2007; and

WHEREAS, the City's Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) identifies an urban tree canopy goal of 30% for the City of Seattle to be achieved by 2037 and in Seattle's most recent Comprehensive Plan amendments (Ordinance 122610), the Council adopted a goal of a 1% per year increase in urban tree canopy coverage up to 40% , and this goal is consistent with the urban tree canopy goal recommended by American Forests, the nation's oldest non-profit citizen's conservation organization; and

WHEREAS, the Council adopted a new Comprehensive Plan policy in Ordinance 122610 stating the City's objective to strive to achieve no net-loss of tree canopy starting in 2008; and WHEREAS, mitigating the cumulative impact of the loss of Seattle's urban tree cover by planting new trees will take decades; and

WHEREAS, climate change, effects of runoff to our streams, lakes, rivers, and Puget Sound, and air quality are issues of immediate importance; and WHEREAS, an environmentally and fiscally superior way to reach Seattle's urban tree cover goal of 40% is to make every reasonable effort to prevent the loss of trees;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEATTLE, THAT: Section 1. The City Council requests that the Director of the Department of Planning and Development promulgate or amend department rules to identify, consider, recognize and protect groves or groups of trees that provide rare, uncommon, unique or exceptional plant or wildlife habitat, or wildlife travelways, or habitat diversity for plant species of substantial aesthetic, educational, ecological or economic value, for the purpose of evaluating and mitigating development proposals; and Section 2. The Council requests that the Director of Planning and Development submit legislation to extend the City's tree protection to include groves or groups of trees that are ecologically interdependent, including groups that may contain exceptional trees as defined in SMC chapter 25.11.

Adopted by the City Council the 30th day of June, 2008, and signed by me in open session in authentication of its adoption this 30th day of June, 2008.
Richard Conlin
President of the City Council

Seattle School District Works Overtime to Silence Critics

Opponents to the Seattle School District's clearcutting of half a grove of old evergreen trees at Ingraham High School got slapped with two motions over the weekend to silence their criticism.

Both seem petty and ill advised from a public relations sense yet the Seattle School District seems impervious to listening to the public.

One motion was to try to silence a quiet mannered public citizen who seems to have devoted most of his breathing time in recent years to trying to make Seattle Schools better. He is present at most of the school district's meetings regarding all manner of things and presents thoughtful researched input into the public process that seems to have few Seattle citizens participating.

His name is Chris Jackins and he represents a broad base of Seattle citizens concerned about school issues under his Seattle Committee to Save Schools. Our family is a member of his group as are other neighbors. Yet the Seattle School District has filed a motion to dismiss him and his committee from the appeal tomorrow on the School District's Determination of Nonsignificance for the Ingraham High School renovation project.

The motion was filed by G. Richard Hill a special attorney paid for by our tax dollars to try to push through the Seattle School District's opinion that cutting down up to 90 old Douglas fir, western red cedar and madrone trees that have existed on the Ingraham High School campus even before the school was build in 1959 is not significant. The trees are over 75 years old and 100 feet or more tall.

According to Mr Hill, Chris Jackins is not an aggrieved person and as such can not file an appeal. By definition all of Seattle residents are aggrieved persons because they are taxpayers who are paying to clearcut trees at Ingraham if the Seattle School District continues with its ill advised anti- environmental stance that cutting down 90 old evergreen trees in a park like setting on the west side of Ingraham High School is not significant.

Hill says that " a person is aggrieved only when the following conditions are present (a) the interest that the person is seeking to protect is within the zone of interests that are protected or regulated by SEPA; and(b) the person has alleged "injury in fact" ie, that he or she will be specifically and perceptibly harmed" by the proposed action."

Chris Jackins and his committee are aggrieved by the proposed actions of the School Board as are most other Seattle residents and should be commended for taking the time to be involved as a citizen activist, not told to put a muzzle on.

Ingraham High School is a International Baccalaureate school that is trying to attract students from all over the city. As such families across the city have an interest in what happens at Ingraham. And if Ingraham diminishes the urban forest habitat by its actions it affects all Seattle residents. Ingraham is not an island unto itself.

The Seattle School District does not need to cut down any large trees to build the addition at Ingraham High School. The North side of Ingraham High School has an open grassy lawn that the school district has actually identified as a future building site in their master plan for Ingraham High School. Considering the magnitude of the impact on the current site that clear cuts 2/3 of a magnificent grove of trees, most reasonable persons would scratch their heads and ask, "Why don't you build the proposed addition there and save the trees?"

The problem is that the Seattle School District and the Ingraham School Design Team made their decision as to where to build in private without public involvement. And that is one of the reasons they have filed their second motion - which is to quash any discussion of their secret process and lack of consideration of alternatives to the present site. They gave lip service to public involvement but unless you were personally selected by Ingraham High School's Principal Martin Floe to come to the unpublicized Ingraham School Design Team meetings you had no way of participating.

The second motion is to dismiss appellants claims regarding alternatives. They argue that since they have "mitigated " their determination of nonsignificance that we can not discuss the fact that other potential building sites like the North side of the school do not require any old trees to be cut down. Yet they make a number of references in the Environmental checklist as to why specific alternative sites won't work as well discuss them in the latest letter of determination of nonsignificance. But the Seattle School District is now trying to say that while it was OK for them to discuss them, we can not do the same.

The Seattle School District is trying to say that its proposal is not environmentally significant because it is going to plant more trees than it takes out. The problem with this argument is that they can not replace old large coniferous trees with small deciduous street trees and claim they are making up for the irreversible loss of a park like grove of 75 year old by planting a bunch of 1 or 2 year old deciduous street trees and some small conifers elsewhere on the campus. This is like telling season ticket holders of the Seahawks that the team has been replaced with two teams of junior high school football players and if we wait long enough they will be able to play against the New England Patriots or the NY Giants. Just have patience.

Seattle School students can certainly get a good lesson in how democracy and the law really works by watching the attempts of the District to silence its critics. Repeated requests to get specific information on alternative designs and budgets from the School District and information on the basis on which it decided to make its decision that the trees were not significant have met with minimal response. This lack of timely and specific response to these public information requests for records leads me to the conclusion that the Seattle School District is a closed bureaucracy that does not feel it needs to involve the public in its decision making It would prefer to do it business behind closed doors out of the public limelight and doesn't feel it needs to be accoutable for its actions.

The hearing on the appeal of the SEPA determination of nonsignificance for the Ingraham High School renovation that will result in clearcutting trees on the site will start tomorrow at 9 AM at Ingraham High School in North Seattle in the school library. The hearing is open to the public and media.

Seattle City Council to Act on Saving Tree Groves

This Tuesday afternoon at 2 PM, the Seattle City Council 's Environment, Emergency Management and Utilities will be discussing and considering passing a resolution on clarifying the existing rules on protecting trees in Seattle "to include groves or groups of trees or other vegetation that are determined to have substantial ecological, educational or economic value"

Resolution 31065 is sponsored by Council President Richard Conlin and Sally Clark. You can read their press release here. They expect the Committee to vote on the issue June 24 and the full council to vote on June 30, 2008.

It does not appear that the public will get much chance to comment on the resolution because the Committee is only allowing 10 minutes of public comment for a jam packed meeting that also includes discussion of a 20 cent per bag green fee on disposable shopping bags and another discussion on prohibiting polystyrene containers for food and shifting to compostable and recyclable alternatives.

The best bet for those that want to help protect existing groves of trees from being destroyed in Seattle is to call or e-mail Seattle City Council members urging their support for added strengthening tree protection. Certainly come to the meeting to show your support as well. The Seattle City Council members can be contacted by going to the Seattle City Council website.

The two current battles over threatened destruction of trees includes a grove of 130 old Douglas fir and western red cedar and madrone trees at Ingraham High School in north Seattle and another grove of mostly Douglas fir in the Maple Leaf area in Seattle called the Waldo Woods.

Recent articles on the proposed tree ordinance:

"Seattle council members want groves of trees protected" Seattle Times 3/29/2008

"Call to Protect grove of trees is sent to Nickels" Seattle PI 3/29/2008

"Seattle Treescape: A bigger canopy" Seattle PI editorial 6/11, 2008

"Neighbors Urge Seattle School Board to Redesign Ingraham HS Project", MajorityRulesBlog 4/15/2008

A growing contradiction at Ingraham high, Seattle PI 3/28/2008

"Maple Leaf appeals decision on letting developer cut down trees" Seattle Times 5/28/2008

Seattle School Board Wants to Honor Renowned Mountaineer by Cutting Down Old Trees

The Seattle School Board is both out of touch with the environment and with history. They are pursing a pig headed approach to renovating Ingraham High School in North Seattle, refusing to consider any alternative designs. Their one and only design clear cuts half of a grove of 75 year old 100 foot tall evergreen trees.

The disconnect here is that besides being contrary to the current goals of Seattle to preserve existing trees and to plant new trees to increase our tree cover in Seattle, they are doing this clearcut at a school named to honor a renowned outdoorsman and mountaineer. The school was named after Major Edward Sturgis Ingraham - the first superintendent of Seattle Public Schools.
As noted on Wikipedia, Ingraham was "a noted mountaineer who climbed Mt Rainier 13 times and a leader in the effort to establish Mt Rainier National Park." The Ingraham Glacier on Mt Rainier is named after him. He also was involved in some of the first ascents of Mt Baker in the 1890's. He was appointed to be a member of the first State Board of Education.

So much for having a school named after you by the Seattle School District. Its sort of like the US Navy naming a battleship the USS Gandhi. Ingraham is probably rolling over in his grave, seeing the lack of respect for what he stood for regarding the environment and the horrible lesson this teaches our children entrusted to the Seattle School District.

The voters approved the funds for the renovation of the school but the Seattle School District never told the voters that their intent was to cut down some 66 Douglas fir, western red cedar and madrone trees on the west side of the school to build the addition. If they had told the voters, the funds never would have been approved.

And all during the planing for the addition through the rendering of architectural drawings, neighbors and other members of the community were kept in the dark as to the Seattle School District's true intent. Internal minutes of a Seattle School Design Committee were first released some 6 months after the meetings started and after the first opportunity for the public to comment on the Environmental Checklist for the project.

The committee noted last year that some neighbors may object to the trees being cut. But at their second meeting they already stated that building where the trees were was their preferred choice. This was despite the fact that a large open area exists on the north side of the school where they can build the addition without cutting down any trees. And they had already in their long range master plan picked this site for a future classroom addition.

The Seattle School District only seriously considered the site where the trees were. A request for release of public information on any alternative designs and associated budget figures produced only a brief one page line sketch of a building on the north side. No alternative budgets supposibly exist.

The Seattle School Board has taken a blind eye to the whole thing - refusing to look at building on the north side and saving the trees. They have issued a notice of determination on non-significance for their SEPA environmental checklist. This is so they do not have to do an environmental impact statement.

The problem is that the Seattle School District is the one issuing the so called notice of determination of non-significance. There is not a review by a separate agency or entity which seems like a significant conflict of interest. It's like asking a coal burning energy plant to determine whether its emmisions are impacting the environment and taking their word for it without any independent agency or entity reviewing the information and making the determination.

Contact the Seattle School Board and urge them to save the trees by building the addition on the north side of the school. No money has been committed or spent for construction yet. The Seattle School District is acting like it is still 1959 and they can build whatever they want where ever they want without taking into account the concerns and goals of the larger community they live in. They are being bad neighbors when they don't need to be bad neighbors. They need to hear that the public opposes their clearcutting plan for Ingraham High School.

You can email the Seattle School Board members at - Sherry Carr, District II; Harium Martin-Morris, District III; Peter Maier, District I; Cheryl Chow, District VII Steve Sundquist, District VI; Mary Bass, District V; Michael DeBell, District IV

Send them all your email since 4 of the 7 board members need to vote to build the addition on the north side of the school. Also send a copy of your e mail to the Superintendent of Seattle Public Schools - Maria L Goodloe-Johnson at superintendent@seattleschools.org .

Just Where is Rossi on Global Warming?

Listening to Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi's answer to a question on where he is on global warming leaves one wondering just where he is. It seems he really is nowhere. He says "There's still a lot of debate going on on this" and that "there's going to be a big debate the next 2 to 3 years" and that he "doesn't think anyone should panic"

Seem's he hasn't even talked with John McCain who says "the facts of global warming demand our urgent attention."

You can see an interesting contrast on McCain and Rossi 's take on global warming on a YouTube clip posted by the Washington State Democratic Party.

see it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6uJQoUIGqk

Rossi's position on climate change really hasn't changed since he was in the Legislature. As Craig Engelhardt, Sierra Club lobbyist noted in the last gubernatorial race "Rossi voted against efforts to fight global warming: Rossi voted against a bill to create a privately funded Washington climate center that would research simple and innovative ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Washington. The center would have also helped identify what types of impacts climate change could have on Washington and what we can do about it. (SB 5674, 2001)"

David Postman in his blog yesterday has a misleading headline saying "Rossi warms to climate change" but then presents Rossi's doubletalk saying it's important to have clean air but his spokesperson says that he would have vetoed one of the bill's the Legislature passed earlier this year to try to reduce global warming. As Postman reports:

Rossi opposed "this year’s major legislative action on global warming. House Bill 2815 set up goals for carbon reduction, but does not fund those efforts. Gregoire signed the bill and has called it a major accomplishment.

Rossi, according to spokeswoman Jill Strait, would not have signed the bill. Strait said Rossi believes “we should focus on rewarding people, not punishing them.”

"The bill she just signed aims to use the power of the government to force people to cut vehicle miles traveled down to the level of 1980 in just ten years, and that is only the first step. Dino’s vision is based on personal freedom and engaging Washington’s creative economy. His plan provides incentives for people to use new, clean technology. "

The only problem is we've seen the free market approach that Rossi proposes. It does not respond to issues like global warming unless there is a personal cost attached to it. The cost of global warming is being passed on to the commons. The oil industry and coal industry and auto industry are extracting profits from their business interests but do not currently pay for the true costs of their industries. Besides pollution itself and dirty air affecting health we now have increased global warming which will affect everyone but which the producers who profit from their sales of coal and oil pay very little to mittigate.

The industries are operately in a profit motivated system that is passing the cost of their pollution onto the commons. The costs for pollution cleanup and global warming consequences are not being borne by industry but by the general public. The profit motivated free market system obviously does not adequately addreess the true costs to society of global warming and pollution.

This is where it is necessary for government to step in and change the rules because the consequencces are no longer just local or insignificant. A tax on carbon is one way to add the costs into the equation to address the true system costs of burning fossil fuels for energy. Investing this money in alternative renewable non-carbon energy systems is one way to correct the injustices and flaws in a free market system that puts individual profit above the common good.

It is obvious that Dino Rossi is not going to change the system to address global warming. The free market system has failed but Rossi continues to support the myth that individual consumers freely making choices will somehow do the right thing.

The free market system gave Americans SUV's and minivans to the exclusion of small cars and public transit. The free market mantra gave corporations the incentive to make mistakes as they attempted to maximize profits making large cars. They were wrong and now people are buying Honda and Toyota hybrids and companies like Ford are money losers.

We've had 8 years of Bush denying global warming on the national level and it would be a big mistake to put someone in as Governor who really doesn't see the problem and seems to be willing to say what he thinks the public wants to hear in a last minute election year conversion. The best gauge of what Rossi will do is to look at what he has or hasn't done regarding global warming to date. The record suggests that it would be a mistake to think he's going to do anything. Election year conversions are just another slick ad campaign gimmick.