The local and national mood seems to say two things:
1) Status quo (the Establishment) doesn’t work
2) Try something new
Further, it seems that perspective is all-important when making these observations.
1) What is the status quo?
2) Who can be trusted to try something new?
As all politics is personal, and flows out of youthful perceptions, it is the movement that can best capture the spirit, the zeitgeist, of current state of affairs that stands to influence public policy, or publicly-represented government, the most. Perhaps that movement will reach a tipping point that leads to a game-change.
Our Boomer generation came of age after a morally-defensible, successful world war that was waged on two fronts (one at a time), after a homefront financial disaster had been addressed by bold – and opposed – government action inspired by President Franklin Roosevelt’s leadership.
Our generation had goals that now seem modest – to own a small home — but big enough to live in for decades; to share a nice neighborhood — where occasionally juvenile delinquents shot out a streetlight; to hold down a job that earned a living – not extravagant – wage; to work at school so that you may go on to college – or at least graduate with your class; and to be able to pay the doctor — who may even come to your house and would certainly meet you at the hospital.
Ah the good old days.
Now, when faced with disastrous, worldwide financial crises; stateless wars and military actions on everything from Drugs and Terror to Afghanistan and Uganda; massive unemployment; declines in both production and consumption; environmental threats; tax on spending (Bank of America fees); obscene executive salaries and obfuscating regulations, we ask ourselves: who and what can we trust?
Back to the beginning: what makes up the status quo, the establishment that has lost our trust?
1) the two political parties, the national defense budget,
2) the banking and “financial services” institutions,
3) capitalism,
4) unions,
5) the legal and court systems,
6) corporate food suppliers,
7) medical insurance systems
8) financially-motivated media.
What are the new ideas that have been brought forward to try?
1) President Obama’s insistence on bi-partisan support for the public good (which he believes the electorate wants — does it? Or is public good an orphan as we all struggle to regain the lifestyle that has defined our existence?) A voice of respect and consideration – and compromise — has been drowned out by those who demand that they be the “winner who takes all.”
2) The Tea Party movement, intransigent in its anarchistic beliefs that all government spending is wrong and by extension, government is the enemy. (The Tea Party’s bellicosity is reminiscent of the French Revolution’s “Reign of Terror,” where extremists executed those who’d wronged them.)
3) The unregulated, but effective Occupy movement in developing creative solutions in self-government, from the “human microphone,” to “hand-voting” to insistence that its very existence and growth is its “message.”
4) The “local food” movement which proposes that cultivating the earth can answer basic, modest needs, if not year-round availability of kiwis and asparagus. (It has been noted that those who are chronically unemployed are matched by large-scale farmers who can’t get laborers to harvest their crops.)
5) Cyber-media such as Anonymous and Wikileaks; and community journalism that allows those on the streets, often with cell-phone cameras, to tell the story
6) Independent medical cooperatives, most often arising in small rural communities
Making change requires the courage to take risks and to be unpopular; ultimately to be willing to put down your marker on one side or another of a situation and say, “having considered the information I now have at hand, this is what I will work for.”
So locally, we advocate above all voting – even though that’s a big part of the government so many of us distrust. The last day to register at County Offices in San Juan Island is Monday, Oct. 31.
We advocate voting “Yes” on the Orcas Island School District levy. The District administration and board have come away from two “rebuilding bond” defeats to accomplish what they can, where they are: make use of a grant — not a loan — a gift to bring the 50-year old elementary school up to health standards. They did this by applying – to the voters, basically – for a loan of $900,000. That’s responsible borrowing and providing for their “family” that justifies our trust in them to “govern” the school district.
We advocate voting “Yes” on the Land Bank initiative. Not only have they stewarded public lands to provide accessibility of our vaunted natural health and beauty to all, but they have earned our trust in managing their own organization so that it may continue to continue in the future. This is one fee that gives great return, one“banking institution” that does not rip off the common man.
We are still on the fence about the Waste Disposal measure. The diligence and public outreach that the County government has invested in putting this matter before the voters to decide –continued government oversight or privatization of waste disposal – is impressive. The explanation of the crisis is credible.
But which solution? County government – public works, planning, the prosecutor – have all kicked the can down the road to our current unresolvable debt.
Further, we seem to be locked in a counter-productive “neighborhood” band-aid (in terms of providing a new waste disposal site for Friday Harbor, which, as a separate municipality, will not bear the burden of this parcel fee) when asked to govern how we will handle a basic need – waste disposal – for the county: representation without taxation.
But is this reason alone to pull the county from managing county-wide waste disposal; will we be punishing ourselves, along with the Council, for making this a part of the decision?
“Don’t let the perfect stand in the way of the good”: although County Proposition 2’s “Plan A” is terribly flawed in this respect, does it really serve ALL county voters to privatize waste disposal by rejecting the proposition? It seems that a fee paid by all property owners, in addition to a tipping fee for individual “dumping” trips may be the only way to govern the three-island disposal/recycling model that public opinion has called for.
But we must govern the County Council and departments by tedious and persistent follow-through. Make it known that the electorate insists on recycling over disposal. If the council can craft a subcommittee on waste disposal, it can craft a subcommittee on recycling — if those governed demand it.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
As noted, there is a real crisis. Although our island county is unique in many ways, the crisis is not a natural consequence of the peculiar characteristics of our county. The crisis is driven entirely by the poor management of our solid waste system.
Plan A doesn’t fix the poor management. Plan A gives more money to the people who have caused the crisis. Plan A is a “user charge” and that’s all it is. It doesn’t reform anything. It doesn’t restructure anything. Plan A simply throws more money at a fundamentally mismanaged system.
There is no big solution to this issue. There is no “county solution.” There are only small, locally focused, island-specific answers to the solid waste conundrum. Solutions that focus on cost avoidance, cost recovery, and island-scale management of waste and recycling are the only ones that have any chance of working. Plan A won’t do that.
Please vote “NO” on Proposition #2.
This crisis is the result of a flawed funding formula that depends solely on waste volume to fund our waste system and a reluctance by commissioners and councilpersons to admit its shortcomings. They have continued to deny this fact as we watched our infrastructure degrade and our income decline.
Prop.2 finally attempts to remedy this flaw with the capital funds necessary to support the infrastructure. Then if there is a reduction in waste volume it doesn’t threaten the viability of the entire system.
Perhaps there is a better way than a parcel fee to provide the needed capital funds, but privatization, the alternative being offered by Prop.2, throws the baby out with the bath water. We can and should continue to keep this essential public service under public control. Only then can we pursue our common waste policy goals.
I am not surprised that you spout the party line and talking points concerning the school district. Health problems? Is there any proof? The way it is always stated it is just assumed there is some proof. I have been saying it isn’t true. No one has come forward to prove me wrong. They just keep making the unsubstantiated claims. I guess it’s true if you just repeat a lie often enough it becomes a fact. Truth is the school did not do the maintenance and that caused the problems. Repairs would have been much less expensive even without a grant. Irresponsible borrowing is when you borrow more than you need to when you can’t afford it in the first place. Vote for this levy and you will get more of the same. Simply they are not done. Replacing the buildings is next. Vote “NO” until you find out how much they really want.