Taking a closer look at the contest for Washington's Lands Commissioner
One of the most important downballot competitions voters must resolve this November is the contest for Lands Commissioner between Okanagan rancher Peter Goldmark (the Democratic nominee) and incumbent Doug Sutherland (the Republican nominee).
At stake is who will lead the Department of Natural Resources - the agency that manages over five million acres of state forests, underwater slopes, and agricultural lands - for the next four years.
Incumbent Doug Sutherland has been at the helm for nearly eight years, and his two terms in office have been characterized by lax oversight, giveaways to timber and mining interests, and poor stewardship.
Peter Goldmark is running to change all that.
Throughout the last few weeks, he has debated Sutherland more than half a dozen times: before the Association of Washington Business, the Gig Harbor Chamber of Commerce, and newspaper editorial boards.
Many of these debates have been aired on TVW, a cable television channel that serves as Washington's equivalent of C-SPAN, but they've received very little coverage in the traditional media. (That's why, last month, we launched the Downballot Project, an effort to provide better political coverage of critically important and under-appreciated contests like the race for Lands Commissioner. This post is part of the project).
One of the more more memorable exchanges in the race happened a month ago over in Central Washington before the Yakima Herald-Republic, one of two newspapers the Seattle Times Company owns east of the Cascades. (The Walla Walla Union Bulletin is the other). The debate can be streamed on demand from TVW's website, but for those who don't have time to watch (and those who prefer reading to streaming video) a recap of the debate follows.
Doug Sutherland opened by reviewing the job's responsibilities and summarizing the different types of lands the Department of Natural Resources manages.
He then talked about his background.
Peter Goldmark opened with a nice biographical sketch, touching on his qualifications and his motivations for running. He launched into a criticism of Sutherland's mismanagement by talking about some of the lawsuits that have been brought against the Department on Sutherland's watch.
Sutherland tried to make a case for his reelection by greenwashing his tenure, taking pains to explain how his office created a plan for sustainable harvest calculation. Goldmark responded by criticizing Sutherland on the Department's slowness of obtaining FSC certification and the way the Department has dealt with lawsuits, observing that negotiating often leads to a quicker and more inexpensive resolution than digging in and fighting.
The participants were next asked about their campaign support. Sutherland was asked about contributions from loggers,, construction companies, and mining firms. Goldmark was asked about his support from unions and environmental groups.
Goldmark commented that he thinks it is wrong that Sutherland is supported by the same companies he is supposed to regulate.
He pointed out that Sutherland's friends have formed an independent political action committee (the Orwellian-named "Committee for Balanced Stewardship") which has amassed over half a million dollars from over half a dozen powerful timber and mining interests. In contrast, Goldmark emphasized that he has over 2,300 supporters from across Washington State.
Sutherland countered that those in the industry trusted him (that's supposed to be a good thing?), and that he has been endorsed by two former Democratic Speakers of the state House, former Governor Dan Evans, and Jim Ellis, who he characterized as leading conservationist. He also claimed that he does not treat his friends differently when they break the rules.
Goldmark was asked about his charge that forests have been destroyed under Sutherland's administration without much public input.
As an example, Goldmark cited as an example a trade that occurred in eastern Pierce County near Thun Field, where three hundred and twenty acres of state forest were traded to a developer for an acre and a half of cement under a Walgreens drugstore in Pierce County. Goldmark stated:
The Lands Commissioner needs to be doing business out in the open, Goldmark concluded. He promised that if elected, there will be no backroom deals.
Sutherland proceeded to give his side of the story of the land swap. He claimed that the parcels were bid on by two anonymous developers, said the parcels were auctioned off, and identified the parties who were contacted before the sale.
Sutherland claimed that the parcels involved in the trade were appraised to be of equal value, and that the parcel he received from the trade generated $484,000 a year in rent, while three hundred and twenty‑acre parcel wasn't generating any revenue. He argued that there was a public process, that it came before the Board of Natural Resources twice (as Lands Commissioner, Sutherland is Board Secretary), and that he didn't know who the two developers were until it came to the Board.
Goldmark pledged to inform the Board if the beneficiary of a trade was somebody that had donated to his campaign.
Next, Sutherland was asked about last year's devastating Lewis County floods, the controversial clearcuts that happened before the flooding, and the relationships between his office and the timber companies that logged the devastated slopes.
Sutherland called the storm severe, describing some of the slides that occurred during the flooding. He claimed that no rules were broken and that bad slides still would have occurred without any clearcutting.
Goldmark suggested that Sutherland was exaggerating the severity of the storm, and observed that the Department of Natural Resources downgraded the area to a lower slide risk when it approved the application to cut trees. Goldmark also stated that the Forests & Fish law of 2001 ought to have protected the flooded Lewis County watershed, but didn't because it isn't far-reaching enough. A lack of regulatory review made the flood worse, he contended.
Sutherland replied that the Forests & Fish law can't be extended to cover areas that are currently exempt unless state law is changed. Goldmark confirmed he would seek a the authority to make those changes from the state Legislaure if necessary.
Sutherland said that the Department of Natural Resources had initiated a comprehensive analysis of the slides and was reevaluating risk factors.
Goldmark was asked about wind energy.
Goldmark said he would support the development of all forms of renewable energy, including wind, biomass and geothermal. He stated:
In a quick follow-up, he was asked if the Department of Natural Resources had approved too few or too many wind leases.
"I think we need to move more aggressively to get more leases," Goldmark said.
Sutherland claimed that he was already doing that, mentioning a few proposed wind farm projects that the Department is working on.
Each candidate then gave a closing statement.
Sutherland said he's proud of his public service and his record. He tossed in an insult of the state's largest city, saying "You can't have everybody in downtown Seattle making the determinations of what's really important in the rural areas of this state."
Goldmark stressed his Eastern Washington roots and background in agriculture. "I will serve the public," Goldmark declared. Promising to protect the common wealth, he added, "I will not accept money from those companies that I will regulate."
Two weeks ago and nearly a month after hosting the candidates in person, the Yakima Herald-Republic published its endorsement in the race. Their choice? Peter Goldmark.
It's time we elected Peter Goldmark to be our next Commissioner of Public Lands.
At stake is who will lead the Department of Natural Resources - the agency that manages over five million acres of state forests, underwater slopes, and agricultural lands - for the next four years.
Incumbent Doug Sutherland has been at the helm for nearly eight years, and his two terms in office have been characterized by lax oversight, giveaways to timber and mining interests, and poor stewardship.
Peter Goldmark is running to change all that.
Throughout the last few weeks, he has debated Sutherland more than half a dozen times: before the Association of Washington Business, the Gig Harbor Chamber of Commerce, and newspaper editorial boards.
Many of these debates have been aired on TVW, a cable television channel that serves as Washington's equivalent of C-SPAN, but they've received very little coverage in the traditional media. (That's why, last month, we launched the Downballot Project, an effort to provide better political coverage of critically important and under-appreciated contests like the race for Lands Commissioner. This post is part of the project).
One of the more more memorable exchanges in the race happened a month ago over in Central Washington before the Yakima Herald-Republic, one of two newspapers the Seattle Times Company owns east of the Cascades. (The Walla Walla Union Bulletin is the other). The debate can be streamed on demand from TVW's website, but for those who don't have time to watch (and those who prefer reading to streaming video) a recap of the debate follows.
Doug Sutherland opened by reviewing the job's responsibilities and summarizing the different types of lands the Department of Natural Resources manages.
He then talked about his background.
Peter Goldmark opened with a nice biographical sketch, touching on his qualifications and his motivations for running. He launched into a criticism of Sutherland's mismanagement by talking about some of the lawsuits that have been brought against the Department on Sutherland's watch.
Sutherland tried to make a case for his reelection by greenwashing his tenure, taking pains to explain how his office created a plan for sustainable harvest calculation. Goldmark responded by criticizing Sutherland on the Department's slowness of obtaining FSC certification and the way the Department has dealt with lawsuits, observing that negotiating often leads to a quicker and more inexpensive resolution than digging in and fighting.
The participants were next asked about their campaign support. Sutherland was asked about contributions from loggers,, construction companies, and mining firms. Goldmark was asked about his support from unions and environmental groups.
Goldmark commented that he thinks it is wrong that Sutherland is supported by the same companies he is supposed to regulate.
He pointed out that Sutherland's friends have formed an independent political action committee (the Orwellian-named "Committee for Balanced Stewardship") which has amassed over half a million dollars from over half a dozen powerful timber and mining interests. In contrast, Goldmark emphasized that he has over 2,300 supporters from across Washington State.
Sutherland countered that those in the industry trusted him (that's supposed to be a good thing?), and that he has been endorsed by two former Democratic Speakers of the state House, former Governor Dan Evans, and Jim Ellis, who he characterized as leading conservationist. He also claimed that he does not treat his friends differently when they break the rules.
Goldmark was asked about his charge that forests have been destroyed under Sutherland's administration without much public input.
As an example, Goldmark cited as an example a trade that occurred in eastern Pierce County near Thun Field, where three hundred and twenty acres of state forest were traded to a developer for an acre and a half of cement under a Walgreens drugstore in Pierce County. Goldmark stated:
It was basically a back‑room trade that was worked out between the developer and Sutherland or his employees, and it converted forest over the objection, I might point out, of sixty or more school children and a number of individuals.He added that the developer on the other end of the deal is one of Sutherland's special interest donors - and that such donations have resulted in lax oversight of timber and mining interests.
The Lands Commissioner needs to be doing business out in the open, Goldmark concluded. He promised that if elected, there will be no backroom deals.
Sutherland proceeded to give his side of the story of the land swap. He claimed that the parcels were bid on by two anonymous developers, said the parcels were auctioned off, and identified the parties who were contacted before the sale.
Sutherland claimed that the parcels involved in the trade were appraised to be of equal value, and that the parcel he received from the trade generated $484,000 a year in rent, while three hundred and twenty‑acre parcel wasn't generating any revenue. He argued that there was a public process, that it came before the Board of Natural Resources twice (as Lands Commissioner, Sutherland is Board Secretary), and that he didn't know who the two developers were until it came to the Board.
Goldmark pledged to inform the Board if the beneficiary of a trade was somebody that had donated to his campaign.
Next, Sutherland was asked about last year's devastating Lewis County floods, the controversial clearcuts that happened before the flooding, and the relationships between his office and the timber companies that logged the devastated slopes.
Sutherland called the storm severe, describing some of the slides that occurred during the flooding. He claimed that no rules were broken and that bad slides still would have occurred without any clearcutting.
Goldmark suggested that Sutherland was exaggerating the severity of the storm, and observed that the Department of Natural Resources downgraded the area to a lower slide risk when it approved the application to cut trees. Goldmark also stated that the Forests & Fish law of 2001 ought to have protected the flooded Lewis County watershed, but didn't because it isn't far-reaching enough. A lack of regulatory review made the flood worse, he contended.
Sutherland replied that the Forests & Fish law can't be extended to cover areas that are currently exempt unless state law is changed. Goldmark confirmed he would seek a the authority to make those changes from the state Legislaure if necessary.
Sutherland said that the Department of Natural Resources had initiated a comprehensive analysis of the slides and was reevaluating risk factors.
Goldmark was asked about wind energy.
Goldmark said he would support the development of all forms of renewable energy, including wind, biomass and geothermal. He stated:
I will make the creation of a new industry around clean, green renewable fuels a centerpiece of my administration as Commissioner of Public Lands.Goldmark added that we should be using waste biomass from forest products to power our electric grid.
In a quick follow-up, he was asked if the Department of Natural Resources had approved too few or too many wind leases.
"I think we need to move more aggressively to get more leases," Goldmark said.
Sutherland claimed that he was already doing that, mentioning a few proposed wind farm projects that the Department is working on.
Each candidate then gave a closing statement.
Sutherland said he's proud of his public service and his record. He tossed in an insult of the state's largest city, saying "You can't have everybody in downtown Seattle making the determinations of what's really important in the rural areas of this state."
Goldmark stressed his Eastern Washington roots and background in agriculture. "I will serve the public," Goldmark declared. Promising to protect the common wealth, he added, "I will not accept money from those companies that I will regulate."
Two weeks ago and nearly a month after hosting the candidates in person, the Yakima Herald-Republic published its endorsement in the race. Their choice? Peter Goldmark.
After careful consideration, this is a race in which we're going to call for new blood and direction. The lands commissioner heads up the important state Department of Natural Resources and we'll back Goldmark, who we would like to see take the agency into a new era.We agree. It's time for new leadership at the Department of Natural Resources and it's time for a fresh approach from the eastern side of the mountains.
It's time we elected Peter Goldmark to be our next Commissioner of Public Lands.
# Posted by Amy : 7:07 AM
Comments:
Great coverage of a race few are paying much attention to with most of the attention going to the races for President and Governor.
Peter Goldmark is a great candidate that will put the public's interests before those of private developers and big corporations looking to enhance their bottom line at the public's expense.
Vote for Peter Goldmark for Public Lands Commissioner!
As a retired Environmental Specialist under Doug Sutherland, I find the DNR Lands Commissioner race very appealing. Due to his connections, I thought Doug Sutherland was unbeatable, but the rise in Goldmark's popularity can't be denied. I support Peter Goldmark for DNR Commissioner although I wish his plan for managing aquatic lands was more fully developed.
Please check out the following article I wrote for OpEdnews for another perspective (it includes a link to another link to another NPIA article as well).
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Are-WDNR-Commissioner-Cand-by-John-Boettner-081017-400.html
Whether you have or haven't voted yet, everyone should be aware of these land use conflicts (You may have to cut and paste the entire link into your browser to make the link work).
Post a Comment