If you enjoy the content you find here, please consider donating to support our continued efforts to bring you the best news and opinion articles we can. We hope you like the recent update to NWCitizen, and look forward to bringing you more insight into local politics and issues in 2017.

Support NWCitizen Not Now

Oh The Horror! The Invasion of the Dreaded DADU has begun!

By On
• In Bellingham, Planning,

Well they’ve gone and done it - City Council and the Mayor (over the objections of the sainted Terry and Gene, the only ones not corrupted by neo-liberal Uberization) have approved DADU’s in single-family neighborhoods all over town. It’s the beginning of the end of our sacred single-family neighborhoods. Soon we will be over-run with massive backhouses full of loud and smelly upstarts and their damn music (“that’s not music! It’s noise”) all making book for the slum landlords of the city with their overcrowded firetraps inspected by Mr. Magoo. With the connivance of a City Hall dedicated to imposing the new world order on us, an introduction to a Stalinesque future distopia where citizens are required to pay more and more for the profits of the favored few, and massive hulking structures, filled with jeering implants from who knows where, overlooking their backyards and wrecking their quiet enjoyment.

At least, according to the NIYBY’s (Not In Your Backyard) to whom this affair is some kind of Greek tragedy, the destruction of our fair city, gnashing their teeth and pulling out their hair over the sheer effrontery of it.

As political theater, it’s fantastic, only bettered by the revolt of the fishermen over the Port’s attempt to raise their moorage and weblocker fees to oligarchic levels. And informed by a massive level of emotion from an organized opposition - the NIYBY’s.

My theory on why there is so much emotion invested in this issue is in two parts:

1) it affects people where they live, raised their families, have happy memories of Billy and Betsy playing with the neighbor kids, all of whom went to the same schools and grew up together. In this context, converting the Smith’s house next door to a rental, or, heaven forfend, an AirBnb rental, with strangers running around, parking in front of your house with nary a by-your-leave, drunken parties and public urination, is a scary prospect;

2) The City apparently changed the rules mid-course - after starting a pilot process in one neighborhood, and promising it wouldn’t be extended without neighborhood input, they went ahead and extended the DADU process to all single-family neighborhoods.

The combination of these two have set off just a festival of butthurt hysteria - totally understandable - but in my opinion, and apparently that of Michael Lilliquist, who made a great show of agonizing over his decision but voted Aye, decidedly in the minority. And kudos to Mr. Lilliquist for bearing the outpouring of NIYBY calumny that is falling on his head as a result. Perhaps he is of mayoral caliber, after all.

There are other opinions in the matter. From people who want to lower their carbon footprint, prevent sprawl into the surrounding countryside, and live in a humbler less energy-intensive way - by permitting densification of single-family neighborhoods with DADU’s. How can you not be onside with this objective - the world is changing and we must change our ways also, despite our desperate wish that everything should stay the same for always.

So here’s a link to the Wild Choir singing their hearts out - greeting the future with hope and love.

About David Camp

Columnist • Member since Jul 12, 2009

David Camp is a cpa (Canada'86; USA'96) and MBA (Schulich'88) who toiled thirty years in the corporate salt mines, counting beans and telling stories to the auditors and whatnot. Now [...]

Comments by Readers

Larry Horowitz

May 09, 2018

Yawn

Read More...

John Lesow

May 09, 2018

David,

I testified before your Planning Commission in January and presented examples of the increased  costs to taxpayers that will follow if DADUs are permitted throughout the city of Bellingham.   

Using the Municipality of Surrey, British Columbia as an example, these examples included:

1.  A significant increase in parking violations due to increases in density of single family residences Surrey with ADUs and DADUs.   

2. A significant increase in Code violations and citizen complaints; crime, noise, etc.  due to these increased densities.  If these concerns are to be addressed properly by law enforcement, there will be extra costs.       

3.  Eviction notices from the Municipality of Surrey were issued to those living in these  ADUs and DADUs for having too many residents in a single family home.  Not surprisingly,  these eviction notices resulted in protests at Surrey City Hall.      

This information about the downside of densification was communicated to your Planning Commission and City Council by way of public testimony, e mails and video links that graphically illustrated the problems in Surrey.   And what was likely going to happen in Bellingham if you allowed ADUs and DADUs throughout the city. 

There is no indication that any of these documented public safety issues were addressed by the City of Bellingham, or a cost estimate prepared by the respective agencies to cover these increased expenses. 

 What is certain is that the increased costs of policing, fire protection and parking enforcement for densified neighborhoods will be passed along to the taxpayers of Bellingham. 

Rents  in Surrey and the metro Vancouver area are still rising.   The proliferation of DADUs and ADUs has not led to a reduction in rental rates .   Nor has  the decades-long practice of cramming more people into smaller living spaces  contributed to a better quality of life. 

Read More...

Jon Humphrey

May 09, 2018

My concern with this is a bit different. I am concerned that the council, again, approved something that will directly benefit wealthy landlords without taking the logical step of improving the infrastructure to back it up. Essentially, we don’t have a Dig Once Policy for telecom, or anything else, including water service and sewers. We are going to triple the use of these existing resources without any real plan of expanding on them. Here are my predictions from teh councils’ past behavior on other issues like the jail project. Another project designed just to benefit the very wealhty, hidden under the guise of (among other things) helping out the homeless: 

1. They will wait until the situation is awful then 2. They’ll say they need to build a new min. $100 Million structure to deal with it and that to do it fast enough they need a private firm to help. 3. The construction company that gets the contract will be a friend of the mayor, council, etc. 4. The decision will be turned into a “voluntary” ballot measure on an issue that has to be dealt with from a practical standpoint, to remove responsibility from the council, mayor, etc. 5. The citizens will have to agree with it or deal with medieval consequences. Like, pardon my French, shit in the streets. 6. When challenged on the decision, and the fact that the project finished at least 3 times over budget, they’ll remind you that it was a voluntary ballot issue and you voted for it. In essence, they create a problem, wait until the situation is critical, then profit off of it. Just like the mob. Well, without the cool parties, cars, and clothes. 

Read More...

David Camp

May 10, 2018

John - I think we’ve covered this ground on another thread - comparing a metropolis like Vancouver to Bellingham, both with very different drivers of growth and massively different populations, is dubious in my opinion. Fifty-five percent of the population of Vancouver is foreign-born - which means that immigration has more than doubled its natural increase. Bellingham is a small university city, with students making up at least 20% of the population.  And considering professors and other employees, WWU/WTC/BTC students and faculty must account for over 35% of the population. Bellingham’s population is 85,000; Vancouver’s is 2.5 Million - almost thirty time more than B’ham’s. 

What is needed in B’ham is more student housing - and teacher housing - as WWU has grown by leaps and bounds but has not added residential space.  For a homeowner to add a DADU to their city lot , with proper permitting,  can provide a solution to our housing shortage without government spending - rather it puts the tools in the hands of people who live in the neighborhood and have a vested interest in improving it. It also creates employment, adds to the tax base, and can help younger people with cash flow to assist in their purchase of a house. Yes this will add water and sewer use - but the City just completed a massive sewage treatment project and has excess capacity - the buildout was for future development - why shouldn;t local homeowners avail themselves of this capacity as well as foreign property developers?

Parking is an issue and I think the only way to deal with it is to extend the permit area to other neighborhoods than Sehome. This is how it works in Cabbagetown in Toronto - every house gets one parking permit and if you need more you buy them. 

As to public safety- Really?  I live in a student neighborhood and but for some noisy parties from time to time in general I would characterise this population as law abiding and quiet. 

 

Read More...

David Camp

May 10, 2018

Jon - I think a lot of your objections are covered by the owner-occupancy requirement - commercial landlords are specifically not allowed t build DADU’s, if I understand correctly. 

Yes the jail was a general shitshow in which our B’ham Councilors and Mayor did not acquit themselves well. It almost looks like they were bullied into acquiescence by the County.

I have to say the ability of a homeowner to build a DADU is exactly the opposite of what you fear - it puts the power in the hands of homeowners who have a vested interest in maintaining the health of their neighborhoods.  Perhaps with more people living in neighborhoods, in small DADU’s, will actually help getting the City to put in community fiber internet. More demand, more political allies?

Read More...

John Lesow

May 10, 2018

David,

Yes, we have covered this ground on another thread; specifically:

—Comments to your January 16, 2018 article, “Why All the Hyperventilating Over Granny Flats”?

—Comments to Dick Conoboy’s December 7, 2017 article on the Rezoning of Single Family Neighborhoods in Bellingham to allow DADUs.

Popular articles.  They garnered over 40 comments from local citizens.    

The examples I offered in my comments on DADUs  were from the experiences in the  Surrey,  B.C. neighborhood of Clayton Heights.  I was not comparing Vancouver to Bellingham.  I was comparing  a Canadian neighborhood to a Bellingham neighborhood.

Ethnicity is not a factor.  People are people.   I pointed out—correctly—that allowing high levels of densification in single family neighborhoods can lead to parking problems, code enforcement problems, evictions and a general decline in the quality of life in these neighborhoods.   

I also suggested that Bellingham city government consider these problems and the additional city services required before they moved forward with re-zoning the entire City for DADUs.    5 months later,  I see no indication that this was done.  Or ever will be.   

 

Read More...

David Camp

May 11, 2018

John - we have a complaint-based system in our fair city. If there are problems, people will complain, and city hall will do something. The biggest issue you identify is parking - I agree - and we already have a parking permit system in place in a couple of neighborhoods (E.g. Sehome) which works well and can be extended to other neighborhoods. In the York neighborhood we already have parking issues - partly from multiple cars per house but also from the Catholic Community Services drug treatment center on Lakeway, which was put in to our residential neighborhood with ZERO public process. But it is working well enough without permits.

As to code violations, we have a rental unit registration and inspection system already.  And new permitted DADU’s will have to meet code from the get-go.

As to ethnicity not being a factor, surely you jest. People have different social norms depending upon where they are from and what they learned at their mother’s knee. Bellingham’s student population overwhelmingly subscribes to American bourgeois social norms - I mean, it’s where the middle classes send their precious young to be educated.  Surrey is a whole other kettle of fish , where people from widely disparate areas and with differing social norms are living cheek by jowl. That it is working, mostly, is a testament to Canada’s open and tolerant society that in effect forces people to get along. But it doesn;t mean they want to live next door to someone who slaughters sheep in their backyard. 

Read More...

John Lesow

May 11, 2018

David, 

All cities have “complaint based” systems.   Yours is hardly unique.

Whatcom County also has a “complaint based” system for Code Violations   Citizens can file a Code Violation Report (CVR) and the County will address the issue.   Maybe. 

 Point Roberts covers an area of 5 square miles.   There are lots of Code Violation reports filed on the Point every year that  are related directly to public health and safety (stormwater runoff,  illegal dumping, etc.)

The last time I checked, the County had (2) Code Enforcement officers on staff for the entire County.    That’s up from the (1) officer we had on staff for many years.   Not nearly enough to do a competent job in a County with a population of 200,000.  The result?   Little gets done to address the concerns of ordinary citizens.    Not in Point Roberts and not in the County.      

The notion that Bellingham’s system of code enforcement is working well—and that it will continue to do so, despite significant increases in citizen complaints directly resulting from increasing densification in single family neighborhoods—is absurd.

That’s why I cited the Surrey, B.C. example—-which is spot-on for purposes of illustration of what can happen if you allow higher occupancies of up to a dozen persons per single family home.     But apparently you, and Bellingham City government assume that somehow these are Canadian examples and not relevant to your “fair city”.

 It’s not up to you to devote municipal resources to determine the costs of increased densification in Bellingham.  That is up to your local government.     Few on your City Council have shown they are up to the task of even studying the problem. 

Your final comments about ethnicity in Surrey—particularly regarding the social norms of residents living cheek by jowl are irrelevant.   Particularly if you have never lived there. 

Once again,....Surrey is no different than any other middle class North American suburb.  Similar homes, similar standard of living, similar schools, similar demographics.    Surrey has a higher proportion of South Asians than Bellingham.  So what?

  

 

 

 

 

 

Read More...

David Camp

May 11, 2018

John - Nice deflection with the County code enforcement issue.  But we’re talking about Bellingham, right? And about presumably rental units that if they’re new (that’s what has people all worked up - new monster DADU’s) must be permitted and inspected prior to occupancy permits being issued, and then need to be registered and inspected as rental units. I think that level of regulation just might keep things regular.

And what but different cultural norms permit occupancy of a single-family home by up to 12 people? If this level of crowding is taking place in Surrey, then truly people are living cheek to jowel! And you don’t have to live there to figure that out!

All I’m saying is there’s a limit to what you can infer from the experience of a much larger metropolis in a different country with a majority of its population foreign-born, to a small college city in a rural county of the US of A. Different animals. The driver here is millenials - who want the single life, are ok living with roommates, and like older, walkable neighborhoods.  It’s a somewhat transient population but typical of college towns. Your experience in Surrey is not really useful as a comparison. 

Read More...

John Lesow

May 11, 2018

David,

No deflection.  Nothing wrong with expanding the scope of this discussion as long as we don’t go off into hyperbole.  Bellingham is, after all, part of Whatcom County. 

As far as the effectiveness of  County vs. City code enforcement, you have your anecdotes and I have mine.  You trust government.   I don’t.   

I have filed two County Code Violation Reports over the past year. One dealt  with a sign violation.  The other was on behalf of  a senior neighbor, whose crawl space in her home was flooded with runoff from a new development.   Nothing was to done rectify either situation.   No fines issued.  No compliance mandated.  Problems remain. 

If you have some good examples of the ease and effectiveness of getting Bellingham to enforce it’s existing codes, fire away.    Yours might be a model for the County to follow.

Until then, I’ll stick with my original statement that relying on City or County government to enforce codes is not effective now.  And will become less effective as densities and development increase.    Without substantial expenditures in Fire, Police and Municipal Services to address the problems of densification, the overall quality of life in Bellingham neighborhoods will decline. 

If the DADU densification of Bellingham goes forward, the City will be able to track the increases in code enforcement expenses, fire and ambulance calls, police calls and parking violations that follow.  Assuming the City decides to track this information.   If there are no measurable increases, it will be good fodder for your argument. 

Regarding “cultural norms”,  the complaints and subsequent evictions in Surrey were due to the City turning a “blind eye” for years to the overcrowding of single family homes.  Most of these low income tenants did not choose to live in these conditions. 

 The City and the Clayton Heights homeowners should not have been permitted to allow  these illegal units in the first place.  But they did. 

To add insult to injury, the City of Surrey continued to collect property taxes for these illegal suites.   It’s all there on the video, if you care to review. 

The only “cultural norms” in this case was a “political culture” that:

(1) Allowed local  government to turn a blind eye to the occupancy of illegal suites,

(2) Collect taxes on these suites, and

(3) Continue to allow  “investors” and homeowners to make money from government’s failure to enforce it’s own rules. 

 The final straw is that it was  the municipal government that  served eviction notices on the tenants, prompting the demonstrations at Surrey City Hall. 

 Check out the video.  I still find it fascinating. 

Read More...

Jon Humphrey

May 12, 2018

Well David, I see what you’re saying and hope you’re right, but I have also watched the government dance around every infrastructure issue they’ve been given, except bicycles, while taking in more and more money. For example, in my neighborhood we have a serious problem with speeders. So many of us appraoched the government about traffic calming devices like speed bumps. The cops themselves were great. They increased partrols, etc. but the council and public works kept telling us that there just weren’t enough complaints to warrant traffic calming devices. So we banded together and started reporting speeders as often as we could. Some of the neighbors even put in cameras. We probably reported this at least 3 times more often than ever before. They still blew it off and said not enough calls were reported to warrant speed bumps. This probably has to do with zoning, and the amount of calls individuals can make. They want the calls to come from many different people, and they simply can’t when you have real homes in a neighborhood. When it became obvious that there were enough calls they started to say that they couldn’t put them in because it might interfere with the super specicalized, ultra heavy duty, vehicles, with extra heavy duty suspension, they have that might respond to emergency situations. They have significantly raised our taxes 3 times since then and still don’t do anything. 

So how does this related to ADU/DADUs. Well 1. There will never be an accurate statistic on how many people are living in them. I expect in the college kids situations that we’ll have a situation where 5 to 8 people might live in one for 9 months a year. 2. The government uses the lowest possible standards to define our standards for expansion. For example, the telecom standard I wrote about in my “Ghosts of Maps Past” artilce is less than half of the standard the Canadians are guaranteeing as a basic human right to their citizens. Our are provided by anti-net neutral, anti-first amendment companies too. However, these big, unethical companies, can afford PSEs $600 per pole rental fee. This is all totally fine with Ted Carlson. Hence, the government will probably use this as an excuse not to put conduit in. 3. This kind of thinking will extend to every other resource too. They will wait until turds are floating down the street. Then they’ll say, ok we’ll look into it. Then they’ll say, you know, the turds floating down the street thing only happens about once a month, or whenever there’s a strong rain, so we don’t really need to do anything about it, but keep paying your taxes ok. This is why we need concrete standards for expansion. Not “on demand” standards because we won’t have accurate census numbers, and they’ll always have an excuse not to do it. They reserve the right not to develop areas if they consider them “hard to work on” for example. Who makes that determination. You guessed it, Ted Carlson. 

So yeah, on paper, if you have faith in the government, Maybe some of my concerns will be addressed, but I have good reason to beleive they will never do anything other than just take more tax money from new tenants, etc. with no real improvements. 

Read More...

David Camp

May 13, 2018

@John Lesow - “ You trust government.   I don’t. “  That’s a laugh. Don’t infer who or what I trust from what policies I support or don’t. 

As to your friend who was flooded out by a neighboring development, surely this is a matter for civil law - small claims court. City inspectors issue orders to landowners to remedy code violations - they don’t have any power to enforce tort law. 

And since the DADU’s whose future arrival you dread - if it’s new construction, which is what we’re talking about, then before an occupancy permit is issued the City must inspect, at least twice, since plumbing and electrical must be inspected before drywall goes in. And if it’s a rental, also what you are talking about, it must also be inspected and licensed by a different department. Two levels of inspection and regulation - hardly a “blind eye” and clearly much different to your irrelevent Surrey example, based as it is on a complete lack of inspection and regulation.  

@Jon Humphreys - We had a problem with speeders in the alley and I just dug a speed bump myself, as well as confronting one bad actor who was living at the Aloha and who stopped after that. Ask me about it sometime it’s a fun story.

Read More...

John Lesow

May 14, 2018

David,

Your righteous indignation has been duly noted.

 Let’s make a little wager.

Bets are helpful in separating the meat  from the baloney in most arguments.  

Particularly after the rhetoric gets stale, as in this case.

As I stated, it will now be possible for the City of Bellingham to track the increase in Police, Fire, EMT calls and Code Violations (including parking)  following the DADU upzone.

 Provided, of course, that the City has the political will to monitor these things.

Let’s review these stats after a period of one year.

If there are no  significant increases in taxpayer costs for these services, then your argument that there is no relationship between increased density and increased public costs will be judged to have merit.  As well as your notion that the Surrey example is irrelevant.

$20?

Read More...

Susan Ryan

May 18, 2018

The problem is sprawl is not being reduced by the addition of infill into built out established neighborhoods. If you lower the quality of life for those that set down roots in the city those that can leave will do so. An excessive amount of corporate landlords do not lead to a sustainable city and healthy city. But what do I know, I am really afraid of change. 

Read More...

David Camp

May 18, 2018

@John - Have you ever known a government budget that did not go up? I am guaranteed to lose that bet if it is based on dollars.  ANyway, I agree that we are down to insect intercourse. But I enjoy a good bet, so here’s my counter - if there is an increase in police, fire, emt calls per capita, let’s say by more than the variance over the past 5 years, you win, I donlt think you will - you forget the revenue side of the ledger - a new DADU will result in more tax revenue - which if the per capita violations stay the same, the new tax revenues will covewr any increased costs. $20. FIne.

 

@Susan - we already have too many commercial landlords- it’s better than 50% of the houses in my neighborhood. But commercial landlords cannot build DADU’s - they are restricted to owner-occupiers.  So being able to build a DADU can help a young homeowner both improve their property and help afford the house in the first place - and hopefully reduce the proportion of commercial landlords and increase the proportion of owner-occupiers.  Isn;t this a change you can support?

Read More...

Larry Horowitz

May 19, 2018

Susan,

You have perfectly articulated the nonsense that infill will prevent sprawl. It will not.

Part of the reason that infill will not prevent sprawl is that there is no codified and agreed upon definition for sprawl to begin with. Although a clear definition is lacking, I believe many would agree that a major disadvantage of sprawl is the consumption of rural, agricultural & resource lands and the destruction of open space, natural beauty & critical environmental areas.

In terms of protecting these lands, infill will not prevent their destruction. At best, it may only delay it for a few years. The only action that can protect rural, ag, & resource lands as well as open space, natural beauty & critical areas is for the cities and county to permanently zone and establish development regulations that actually protect them. Unless this action is taken, new development will continue to consume these lands.

In many cases, infill reduces a city’s levels of service as well as livability and quality of life. For all the talk of striving for the American dream of homeownership, infill advocates are only too happy to rezone single-family neighborhoods and destroy the dream many have worked tirelessly to achieve. As I have written on NWC (Self-Determination or Self-Defeat?), legalizing DADUs in all single-family zoned areas citywide is simply Bellingham’s Trojan Horse to eliminate single-family zoning as we know it and allow all kinds of multi-family toolkit and middle housing forms.

As you have correctly stated, those who can leave when their dream and quality of life are ruined will do so. Many will seek to own large acreage in the county to provide the quality of life that cities have failed to protect, causing even more sprawl. They call that Smart Growth! I wonder what they would consider Dumb Growth?

What’s bizarre is that although Bellingham’s elected officials have taken an oath to uphold the laws of our city and state, they have failed to uphold the Growth Management Act (GMA) requirement to preserve established residential neighborhoods under RCW 36.70a.070(2) as amended by State Senate Bill 5567. Perhaps their failure to uphold state law would justify a recall vote.

Susan, thanks for taking time to comment on NWC. I look forward to hearing more from you.

Best,
Larry

Read More...

David Camp

May 21, 2018

@Larry - if the County grows by two thousand people, and they can all be accomodated within densified urban growth areas, rather than settling in rural areas, then clearly there is less “sprawl”, however you define it.  

You are not obliged to densify your own property - your 1/2 acre lot can remain sacrosant by your own choice. WHat you are objecting to is your neighbor’s ability to build a permitted ADU on their own property. Now reasonable people can disagree on what constitutes “quality of life” but it seems to me that your attempt to deny your neighbor the right to build an ADU to accomodate their aged parents or whomever is rather an attack on THEIR quality of life - which is their quiet enjoyment of their own private property.  

This is what I object to in this whole foufra - what you and the vocal minority who so emotionally object to ADU’s are in effect doing is trying to restrict everybody else’s freedom.  

Read More...

Larry Horowitz

May 21, 2018

David, why do you continue to assume you know what other people are objecting to?  

This has nothing to do with a DADU.  I live in a subdivision with covenants that protect my neighbors and me from most of the crap the city plans to impose.   But I am opposed to eliminating Bellingham’s single-family neighborhoods as we know them, which is why I referenced my NWC article (Self-Determination or Self-Defeat?) and call the DADU exactly what it is: Bellingham’s Trojan Horse that will ultimately rezone the entire city and decimate single-family zoned areas.

Regarding your lame example of accommodating 2,000 people, you continue to operate with blinders.  We are dealing with an open system.  It’s not as if we’re done once we accommodate those 2,000 people.  After we upzone for them, another 2,000 will come, then another, and another, theoretically ad infinitum.  At some tipping point in the future, the next 2,000 will sprawl into the rural areas, and all we would have accomplished is a brief delay.

And stop pushing this freedom nonsense.  It’s so ridiculous as to be not worthy of a response.  Zoning is about legal rights.  If the law says you cannot build a DADU, then you are not free to do so.  When you purchased your home, if you had wanted to build a DADU, then you would have been SOL.  What you want is to eliminate your neighbor’s legal right not to have a DADU adjacent to her backyard.  And now you have succeeded.  Congratulations, you have eliminated your neighbor’s right.  Again, this has nothing to do with freedom.

People ask me why I continue to waste my time responding to you.  I’m beginning to wonder myself.

 

 

Read More...

David Camp

May 21, 2018

Larry - the proximate cause of all this foufra is permitting DADU’s in single-family neighborhoods. This is what the whole debate is about - a specific piece of legislation - that permits them. Your rhetorical claim is complete speculation - that ADu’s are the camel’s nose in the tent - and the next step is permitting apartment complexes in single family neighborhoods or something. Effectively, your argument is mostly a straw man on what might happen if these dastardly densifiers have their ultimate way.  

The City just went through a massive public process to amend the law to permit detached ADU’s . It’s not like ADU’s are a new thing - attached ADU’s are already permitted.  That’s a relatively minor tweak to existing law.  ANd hardly “eliminating single-family neighborhoods”.  Really, the rhetoric is beyond hysterical. 

Anyway, you can keep setting them up for me to knock down or you can waste your time doing something else. All the same to me.  It’s a free country - and I won’t stop “pushing this freedom nonsense”.  I can’t believe you actually wrote that. 

 

Read More...

Larry Horowitz

May 21, 2018

David, I have finally joined my friends who refuse to respond to you.  What a waste of time!

Read More...

John Lesow

May 21, 2018

David,

Not to end on a negative note, I accept your additional qualifiers to our original bet.

 

Read More...

David Camp

May 21, 2018

John- thx - accepted. But not yet ended, by gar!

@ Larry- you and I have jousted publicly on this forum many times. Mostly on this issue. And I appreciate the pushback - tho I’ve taken you to task for insult before. But I can’t let your dismissal go unanswered- it epitomizes a more general situation I have observed as this thing has unfolded. 

It is this- the level of hostility and aggressive talk and behavior people of your view are taking, in public, I consider uncivil. And I will give you an example- of outright bullying of the young woman who dared advocate for civil view by singing. By a man much larger than her who got in her face and tried to intimidate her to submission. Which she did not do but this kind of bullying is simply not acceptable if we are to have a civil society where persons are respected. 

If we are to be truly a civilization, that is, a society where people respect the law and comport themselves accordingly, then there must be respect for differing views in civil matters. Reasonable people can disagree- and be civil about it. 

Anyway, yup, waste your time elsewhere- my articles garner more reads and comments whatever you do.

Read More...
Facebook Google LinkedIn Print Reddit Twitter