by Jim Scarantino | Mar 5, 2020 | General
Homeowners don’t have cash to pay higher property taxes. It is tied up in their homes. Homebuyers need all their cash for downpayments and higher mortgages. Home sellers have cash only briefly. The proceeds from the sale of their home go towards buying a new place to live, and those places are also more expensive as real estate prices rise across the board.
But realtors have cash sitting on the table at every closing.
If we are going to tax anybody for affordable housing programs, tax realtors. They have money on hand and it is money that doesn’t build, buy or maintain housing.
Consider a sale I just watched in my neighborhood. A home was listed with a realtor. The owners did a lot of work getting it ready. The property received many views on Zillow and Redfin, but we saw very little activity in terms of showings. Indeed, I don’t recall ever seeing the realtor there.
Then one day the house sold to out of state buyers. It went for about $700,000. After closing costs, the state excise tax, and realtor’s commission, the owners had about $650,000. They needed all of that for their new home, the costs of moving and setting up a new residence and to recover the substantial cost of improvements over the years in the dwelling they just sold. The realtor got roughly $42,000.
$42,000 for what exactly? For advertising on Zillow and Redfin, mostly. For posting a sign at the street. For a few showings. For phone calls. For getting paperwork to the title company that really does most of the work on closing the sale.
The realtor paid the small 1.5% broker’s tax, $630, and still had more than $41,000 cash left. I have proposed a ten percent tax on real estate commissions, with the existing 1.5% going to the state and the additional 8.5% retained here in Jefferson County for affordable housing, or to tackle our homelessness needs. In the case of this transaction, that would translate to $3,570 for local housing programs from the sale of just one house. The realtor would still pocket $37,800 for not much work. For most families in our county, it takes a year of full-time labor to earn that much.
That amount of money is still plenty of incentive for realtors to continue to list $700,000 properties. They may try to increase their commission rate, but homeowners are chaffing at paying 6% and would likely resist. There may be enough competitive pressure building with on-line marketing options to prevent realtors from simultaneously raising their commission rates, in effect, engaging in illegal price fixing. As we discussed in a previous article in this series, realtors are already under scrutiny for their anti-competitive practices, practices which contribute inexorably to higher real estate prices.
Why Haven’t Housing Activists Looked at Realtor Commissions as a Funding Source?
It seems so obvious. The money is right there, on the table at every closing. It is an enormous pot of money. In 2019 Americans forked over about $75 billion in realtor commissions. That is 7.5 times the amount of commissions paid to Wall Street for stock and bond trading, even though the value of real estate traded was 2.5 times less. (Some of the statistics cited here come from a 2/15/2020 Economist article, “Tearing Down the House: Technology is Poised to Upend America’s Property Market.“)
Activists continue to seek increases in property taxes to fund housing programs, with the result that they make housing more expensive and also contribute to rising rents. Property tax increases for affordable housing have been defeated in several communities around Washington state, and are increasingly unpopular even in Seattle. The harsh reality is that Washington homeowners are close to breaking under the weight of constantly heavier property taxes.
Housing activists certainly are aware of the enormous amount of money coming out of property sales and going to realtors. They know these commissions could fund affordable housing. But they have chosen not to go there.
For one thing, many housing activists are too dependent on funding from certain realtors. Realtor trade groups also provide funding to housing activists. Considering how realtors behave as a cartel, driving prices up by restraining competition and information, their token support for housing activism could be viewed as a public relations stunt. If they were serious, they would be driving down commissions and closing costs and embracing, rather than fighting, technological innovation.
Realtors and their trade groups also possess a good deal of political influence. There are 2 million realtors in the United States. The National Association of Realtors is the nation’s largest trade group and displays its power with an impressive high rise headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Locally, some realtors not only have great political influence, they are also influential politicians and office holders. Many of Port Townsend’s problems have been caused by regulations and infrastructure strategies that favor higher end real estate to the detriment of work force housing, and blue-collar jobs. The net result biases the market toward higher real estate prices, which makes it easier for realtor/politicans to earn higher commissions with the same amount of effort.
Housing activists run the risk of losing what political clout they enjoy by suggesting that realtors should be paying more to address the crisis they have helped to create. Rather than take on realtors, activists often target property owners, a group lacking equivalent political organization and power.
One salutrary effect of taxing realtors would be motivating them to use their considerable influence to see that their tax dollars were applied with maximum cost-effectiveness. A sunset provision, say of ten years, would give realtors a target date for demanding real results so that the higher tax rate on their commissions need not be renewed.
Instead of settling for the few crumbs realtors cast their way, housing activists, perhaps gaining some insights and motivation from this series and articles we have linked, may realize that a more rational and more progressive source of funding should be seriously considered.
Related:
Tax Realtors to Fund Affordable Housing: A Proposal for Housing Activists
Realtors’ Anti-Competitive Practices Inflate Housing Costs
by Jim Scarantino | Feb 28, 2020 | General
After three years and a budget of $3.2 million, the Cherry Street Project welcomed its first tenants. Not in the 70-year old building contaminated with asbestos and lead. No, these tenants are living al fresco in a homeless encampment.
The photograph for this story was taken February 27, 2020. It shows a trashed out camp in the trees just below the empty building that was barged from Victoria, B.C. nearly three years ago. The grounds are now full of trash–a discarded tire, broken gate, plastic, construction waste–and showing signs of severe erosion. The encampment itself is a heap of soggy sleeping bags, discarded clothing, loose garbage, bags of unknown items, and what appeared to be drug paraphernalia. More than one person has set up camp in the heart of what was once a very nice neighborhood.
Property values of surrounding houses were no doubt already in decline due to the proximity of the unfinished building and the neglected lot. It is unlikely the building will ever be completed. Our last report detailed how Homeward Bound Community Land Trust, the group behind the building–which already has nearly $2.2 dollars of taxpayer commitment through a loan from the City of Port Townsend and the gift of $600,000 in land–is going to default when its first payment is due this summer. They have been burning through the grace period that was supposed to have seen completion and rental of the building so that the group could start earning income with which to pay back the taxpayers. We explained more than a year ago how the loan package was doomed to result in default. See our December 12, 2018 report, “The Tragedy of the Cherry Street Project.”
The last word from the group behind the project, as we reported previously, was they needed at least another million dollars to finish the project.
A letter to the Port Townsend and Jefferson County Leader from former Port Townsend City Councilor Bob Gray, published after our last report, explained that nothing is happening to move the project forward because neither Homeward Bound nor the city has the money the project needs so that it can be rehabilitated, brought up to code and rented.
Who is responsible for this mess? Who should be held accountable? On one side is Homeward Bound, the group that has received generous taxpayer funding but in three years has failed produce any shelter except for this homeless camp. Kate Dean, a Jefferson County Commissioner, has been deeply involved in Homeward Bound for the past three years and is one of their longest serving board members. On the city’s side, Mayor Michelle Sandoval was the most vocal supporter of the project at its start when she boasted it would be “a demonstration project.” Our upcoming report will focus on the role these two officials have played in this fisaco.
by Jim Scarantino | Feb 18, 2020 | General
Realtors drive up housing prices. The restraints of trade ingrained into the way realtors work make the housing affordability crisis worse. Even the buyer’s agent is part of the problem, for they are incentivized to seek a higher sale price though that goes against the interest of their client.
But things are changing. The same lawyers who took on Big Tobacco are seeking to change the way realtors work. The Federal Trade Commission is pursuing anti-trust investigations of realtors. Technology is shaking up the industry and stripping away justification for high real estate commissions and disrupting realtor controls on markets and data.
Housing activists have been slow to focus their attention on the impact realtors have on housing affordability, even though the transaction costs realtors impose on the market are a huge part of the problem. In the face of resistance to increasing property and other taxes–both political and practical, as many homeowners face losing their homes under the pressure of rising taxes–activists would do well to turn their attention to a sector of the housing market that profits handsomely without contributing to building or maintaining housing.
In our first installment in of this series, we proposed that housing activists should seek an increase in the negligible taxes on broker commissions, a step that could generate sizable funds for affordable housing without adversely impacting housing affordability.
Rigged for Ever Higher Prices
Realtors on both sides of a transaction get paid from the standard 6% commission that comes out of the sale price. It is easy to see why the seller’s representative wants a higher price. The buyer’s representative faces the same incentive structure. Except for a bit of fleeting gratefulness from their client, the buyer’s agent really has no motivation to pursue lower priced properties. Splitting 6% on $600,000 puts more money in their pocket than a 6% commission on a $400,000 house.
Industry observers have noted that there is evidence that realtors representing buyers steer them away from “for sale by owner” listings, because those homes are often priced lower, and also don’t come with the prospect of a 6% commission to divide. Ever notice how a FSBO property goes unsold for a long time, but, when the owner throws in the towel and signs with a realtor it suddenly sells, even at a higher price? This could be the result of realtors steering their clients away from the FSBO. There has been some litigation around the country raising claims of boycotts by realtors of FSBO properties, a violation of anti-trust and fair trade laws.
The inherent conflict of interest in this arrangement–where the buyer’s representative personally does better if their client does worse–would seem to crumble under the pressures of a freely working marketplace. But realtors have not worked long and hard for a free market place. Their industry has repeatedly been described as “a cartel” that suppresses competition and imposes rules to exclude innovation that would undercut their control and profit margins.
Enter the plaintiffs’ lawyers.
Taking on the Realtors’ Cartel
A class action lawsuit was filed about a year ago against the National Association of Realtors claiming that NAR’s compensation policies, which require all member brokers demand blanket, non-negotiable buyer-side commission fees when listing a property on the Multiple Listing Service, constitute a violation of federal anti-trust laws. Sellers who listed their properties on 21 Multiple Listing Service around the country are plaintiffs, and more are being actively recruited. NAR has faced similar claims in the past, but none have been brought by such a well-funded, experienced and skilled team of attorneys. The lawyers bringing this lawsuit are among the nation’s most successful, and most feared class action lawyers. They have prevailed against Big Tobacco, Big Pharma and Big Tech. They now have the realtors’ cartel in their sights.
No plaintiff has yet emerged from Washington, though the same NAR policies challenged in the suit are in effect here. Anyone who has bought or sold a home in Jefferson County and used a realtor experienced the same fixed, mandatory commission arrangement.
Experts who have studied the lawsuit say it would revolutionize the American real estate market. Real estate commissions here are higher than in other countries where buyers and sellers each directly pay their own agent. A 2002 study by the International Real Estate Review, cited in the lawsuit, concluded that if buyers negotiated and directly paid their agent, listing commissions for seller’s agents would be closer to 3% than the standard 5-6%. Consumer advocates say we can do better than that, and expect to see commissions in the 1.5% range, what buyers and sellers pay “estate agents” in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.
Further, the suit claims that the NAR mandatory payment arrangement results in buyers agents steering their clients to higher priced, and exclusively MLS listed properties.
According to Michael Walsh, CEO at Exclusively Buyers, quoted in a Forbes report on the suit, a rare real estate firm that works only with homebuyers, “This is no garden variety lawsuit.”
“Potential damages are estimated at $54 billion,” Walsh said. “The plaintiffs allege collusion, hidden payments and anti-competitive practices designed to maintain real estate commissions at artificially high levels.”
You can learn more about the lawsuit at the website established by the plaintiffs’ lead counsel, Hagens Berman of Seattle. If you sold a home in the past five years and believe that you paid too much in commissions due to your realtors’ participation in the NAR cartel scheme, the attorneys may be interested in hearing from you. You can contact them at the link we just provided.
The Federal Government Combats The Realtors Cartel
If realtors had their way, we would not be shopping for homes on the internet. Some innovators who threated their monopoly faced threats of violence, as well as business-destroying harassment by state real estate commissions dominated by and existing for the benefit of influential realtor trade associations.
In 2005, the Department of Justice sued to overturn the NAR’s barricades to allowing the public to search properties on the Internet. That was the advent of websites such as Redfin and Zillow. After three years of litigation, the National Association of Realtors surrendered and entered into a ten-year consent decree. Now most buyers find their properties on-line, many before contacting a realtor. But, real estate commissions have barely budged. Consumer advocates continue to insist that realtors’ anti-competitive practices preserve the inflated commission structure and much more work needs to be done.
The Department of Justice has stepped into the pending class action challenging the NAR commission mandates. Their first step was to inform the court that the NAR had been misrepresenting the consent decree. The DOJ is now an interested party in that lawsuit as it moves forward.
At the same time, the Federal Trade Commission has opened its own investigation into anti-competitive practices by realtors and their trade associations, with an emphasis on broker compensation and restricted access to listings.
In June 2018 the DOJ and FTC held a joint workshop on anti-competitive practices and barriers to entry in the real estate market, as well as the impact of past regulatory actions. These efforts by the DOJ and FTC come as the Trump administration has recognized a national affordable housing crisis. Dr. Ben Carson, Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, has won bi-partisan support for his proposals for regulatory reform to promote affordable housing availability.
Technology is Disrupting the Realtor Cartel
Zillow and Redfin have already made a huge impact, and shown that sky-high commissions for every real estate transaction are not justified and needlessly raise the cost of housing. Much of the work done in the past by realtors is now being done for them. More and more consumers question whether realtors are worth the enormous commissions they can make for very little effort.
The multi-billion dollar real estate industry continues to draw innovation as entrepreneurs see an opportunity to profit by disrupting the cartel and outmoded ways of doing business. Space does not permit an in-depth look into all the innovation afoot, innovation that will dramatically reduce transaction costs. Home buyers will benefit from lower prices and rechanneling of their scarce dollars into housing instead of unnecessary and inflated commissions.
What Housing Activists Can Do
First, housing activists should recognize that transactions costs are a real problem in making housing less affordable. Inflated commissions are factored into the ultimate sale price. That is why FSBOs are frequently priced lower: the seller does not have to factor into her bottom line having to pay a realtor tens of thousands of dollars. (High closing costs and title insurance are another area deserving of activists’ attention).
Second, housing activists should work to end the conflict of interest present in the current mandatory NAR commission structure. They should press local government to outlaw the practice of sellers and buyers agents splitting the same pot of money. They should urge lawmakers to require that buyers agents be paid directly by buyers. Local laws can override the NAR’s anti-competitive rules.
Housing activists must pursue every opportunity to bring down housing costs. A market hobbled by decades of poor land use regulations, stifling building codes and exclusionary zoning laws–all of which have severely restricted the supply of affordable housing–needs lots of work before it is fixed. But in a crisis no opportunity for improvement must be ignored. Considering how much consumers hate paying sky-high real estate commissions, an effort to correct the anti-competitive forces behind those commissions might find a more receptive public than another call to raise property taxes.
Realtors Are Feeling the Heat
Facing a very serious class action that has been described as a “nuclear bomb” on the industry, and federal anti-trust inquiries, the realtors industry has announced that affordable housing has become “a top advocacy priority for 2020.” The National Association of Realtors is the nation’s largest trade association, representing more than 1.4 million agents and brokers. In a policy forum held this month at its imperial Washington, D.C. offices, the NAR announced it is getting behind various regulatory reforms to increase the stock of affordable housing and make home ownership more accessible at lower income levels. Echoing Secretary Carson, they have called for reforms on mortgage lending, zoning, and local development plans.
One idea they somehow failed to discuss: bringing down the cost of buying and selling by reforming realtors’ anti-competitive, conflict-laden commission structure.
National Association of Realtors, national HQ
In our next installment, we return to the proposal that realtors’ commission should be taxed at a higher rate to raise funds for affordable housing projects.
by Jim Scarantino | Feb 12, 2020 | General
One segment of the housing market can and should bear higher taxes to generate funding for affordable housing. That is realtors, who take a percentage of the sale price of houses built and maintained by other people. As real estate prices rise, they earn increasingly higher commissions for the same effort. Higher taxes on realtors can alleviate the harm being caused by decades of poor land use and zoning regulations, stifling building codes and regressive, constantly rising property taxes.
Those harmful policies must be reversed, but it will take a sea change in political power and perspective. The current Democrat majorities at state and local levels will, until that change comes, continue to seek sources of funding for affordable housing. The taxes they choose, such as property, real estate excise and sales taxes, only aggravate inequities. Bringing real estate commissions into the mix can generate substantial revenue for affordable housing funds, and contribute greatly to eventful, more meaningful reforms. This can be done without making housing less affordable and less available, serious flaws in the other solutions housing activists have been pursuing.
Readers of this site are likely surprised to see me calling for a tax increase. But back during the Prop 1 campaign in Jefferson County in 2017 (a ballot measure to raise property taxes for affordable housing) I made the same proposal. The need for affordable housing has only gotten worse. I am not talking about housing the itinerant homeless. We are seeing working class people and small business owners unable to live to in our county because they cannot find a place to live. Creative, industrious people that can contribute to our growth and prosperity are departing or avoiding Jefferson County. The ripple effect of their aversion to participating in our community hurts all of us on many levels, now and in future years.
Make no mistake, the decades old policies and ideology of the Democrat monopoly on power is responsible for this situation. They have determined zoning, building codes, land use regulations and tax policy. They seem more averse to achieving substantial corrective policy reforms than they do to raising taxes. Currently, we are seeing housing activists, working with Democrat sponsors, pursuing and achieving increases in sales taxes and appropriations, which, of course, are funded by taxes.
The resistance in Jefferson County to raising property taxes presents an opportunity for considering what should have been to housing activists an obvious, just and simply administered source of tax revenue: real estate commissions.
I would venture that housing activists have not examined this idea because they have been co-opted, if not corrupted, by politically influential realtors and their trade groups. Perhaps I will expand on that observation as this series unfolds.
Consider the alternatives housing activists have been pursuing.
Increasing Property Taxes. Here, in Bellingham, Seattle, Tacoma and elsewhere, they have sought, and sometimes won, property tax hikes in the name of combating homelessness and housing insecurity. But when they have succeeded they have only made housing for everyone more expensive, placed homeownership out of reach for more people, and caused rents to rise.
Extracting Concessions from Homebuilders. Housing activists sometimes simply want to have government require builders to create affordable housing. To the builder, that means spending their resources and time on housing that does not pay its way or earn a positive return as it is sold or rented at below market rates. Putting greater burdens on home builders in the name of increasing the supply of affordable housing makes no more sense than raising property taxes to promote affordable housing. Builders are the people who take the risks to actually build something. They have to make a profit in order to stay in business. Their continued success means that the next house can get built. Set asides–requiring them to restrict the income they can make from a certain percentage of new housing units–is a disincentive to building anything. At the same time they are being hamstrung in their ability to earn income from what they have built, their costs and taxes continue to rise. This is no way to encourage more home building.
Rent Control. Rent controls have been proven to limit the supply of new housing stock. Sure, if you are lucky enough to score a rent controlled unit, you are happy. But squeezing landlords, who are risking their investments and time to provide rental housing, does not encourage investment in more rental units. The overall effect is to stagnate the supply of habitable units as demand increases. Cities that have frozen or slowed rents do not freeze or slow the taxes and underlying costs that erode a landlord’s ability to keep her rental units in good condition. Legislation that ties a landlord’s hands in how they conduct their business–by prohibiting them from ensuring that prospective tenants will not be trouble, or requiring them to house for free deadbeat tenants for prescribed periods of time–do not encourage anyone to take on what is already a difficult and risky way to earn a living.
Realtors Are The Answer. Realtors can be taxed at higher rates and there will be no adverse consequences for the housing and rental markets.
Consider how they make their money. They earn commissions, usually around 6%, when a property for which they have the listing is purchased. They also make money on the other side of the transaction if they are representing the buyer. For a property that sells for $500,000, the realtors in the deal split about $30,000. They could make this amount of money in a few days, as frequently happens in tight markets like we see in Jefferson County.
Realtors earn this hefty amount of money without risking any of their own. They did not invest in that house. They did not fix the septic system. They did not pay taxes and maintain the landscaping. But they may reap a profit equal to what the homeowner spent to put on a new roof.
As real estate prices increase, realtors are not working harder to earn those higher commissions. They pretty much do the same thing for a $500,000 house that they do on a $250,000 house. Additionally, much of the leg work realtors did years ago is being done for them by Zillow, Redfin and similar websites. Taking photographs that make a room look larger than it is in reality may be a new skill for realtors, but it hardly justifies the huge commissions they earn when so much of the screening of a property is done for them remotely on the Internet.
Despite these new technologies, realtor commissions have not appreciably budged. Technology has benefitted consumers in just about every other industry by increasing efficiencies. Why haven’t real estate commissions dropped? We will discuss the anti-competitive legacy and impacts of realtors and their trade associations in keeping transaction costs high and contributing to housing unaffordability.
Currently, realtors in Washington pay a 1.5% tax on their commissions. That is higher than realtors pay in other states. But Washington, particularly western Washington, also has faster rising and generally higher real estate prices and a greater shortage of affordable housing than many other states. The amount of tax realtors pay on their commission is, unfairly, far, far less than the seller pays in real estate excise tax.
That 1.5% tax on a $30,000 commission on a half million dollar house comes to only $450. The realtors in the deal walk away with $29,550
Doubling that tax to $900 would be a drop in the bucket. Realtors would still take the listing. They would still take their photos for Zillow. They would still walk prospective buyers through the house and hand out their cards. The would still be telling the seller to spend more money to make the house more presentable.
And it would make no difference to the supply of housing. I submit that the real estate brokerage tax could be raised to 10% and still make no difference on the availability and price of housing. For the chance at netting $27,000, realtors will take that $500,000 listing. They still could make with a couple days’ work what is a year’s salary for many people in this county.
Next: Realtors’ History of Anticompetitive Practices Contributes to Housing Unaffordability.
by Brett Nunn | Feb 6, 2020 | General
I mentioned in my last opinion piece that the city made a good start by banning the feeding of deer within city limits. In speaking with the city, and state fish and game representatives, it seems that there is more to come. Expect a long process involving public input.
What none of us should want is an expensive process. I have a concern with the recent history of the City Council acting “in good faith” to solve a problem with a solution that seems like a bargain, only to have the price balloon to an extraordinary amount with little or nothing to show for the effort. (See Cherry Street Affordable Housing Project)
In the meantime imagine my surprise when, in the process of researching human/deer conflicts, I discovered that Western Washington is home to the black-legged deer tick that carries Lyme disease. Adding to my newfound knowledge, I stumbled across at least one Port Townsend resident who contracted Lyme disease in the last couple of years from a tick bite received while working in their yard.
Scientists believe the pipeline for Lyme disease operates as follows: As black-legged tick larva mature into nymphs they feed on mice carrying the infectious bacteria, Borrelia Burgdorferi. As the nymphs mature into ticks they feed on larger animals, primarily deer. Deer bring the nymphs and ticks into proximity to humans when they browse through our landscaping and pause for a siesta under the camellia bush. The deer wander off. Nymphs, the size of a poppy seed, and ticks, slightly larger, are left behind to find a human or pet host. This might be you, your kids, or the dog playing in the yard. The ticks find their way onto your skin, latch on in search of a blood meal, and pass on to you the infectious bacteria that causes Lyme disease.
Lyme Disease is a serious, potentially debilitating illness.
The Washington State Department of Health recommends that the best way to protect yourself is to reduce your exposure. If staying indoors doesn’t suit your plans, know that ticks need to be attached for at least 36 hours to transfer the bacteria. You should inspect yourself and your children for evidence of ticks and remove them immediately.
There is no vaccine yet. If you are infected, symptoms usually appear in three days to three weeks. If identified early, Lyme disease can usually be cured with anti-biotics. If you miss the symptoms and discover you have the disease a year later, there is no effective treatment. Arthritis, fatigue, mental issues, and severe headaches are long-term side effects.
The disease is rare in Port Townsend, for now. The County Health Department tells me there have been ten cases of Lyme disease reported in the last ten years, only two of which were verified as originating in Jefferson County. Some experts say climate change could make our region more favorable to deer ticks. The Jefferson County Health department has begun discussing what that may mean for Jefferson County residents. Regardless, if we reduce the number of deer, we reduce the number of tick transports that can spread infection to humans. Yes, Lyme disease rare, perhaps that is reassuring. But what if it is your child an infected tick finds? That one case could mean the world to you and your family. It will not seem like an outlier to you.
It is not just the threat of diseased ticks that pose real hazards. Deer can be killers.
A dog was killed by a deer in November 2019 in Uptown Port Townsend on Clay Street a block from my house. I have learned that it was on a long retractable leash, and was killed by a buck. The local Fish and Game wardens were unable to do much because they could not identify which of the many bucks in this neighborhood might be responsible. Even if they could locate the exact animal they would need evidence of continued aggressive behavior towards the public to justify any action.
Bucks are aggressive during the rut in the fall. Does can be very aggressive in the spring when they have their fawns. Deer kill dogs in urban neighborhoods just about every year. The dog does not have to be aggressive towards the deer to warrant an attack. If you try to protect your dog you may become a target as well.
I welcome the public process and a healthy debate, but I don’t believe we should spend time or money on half measures like deer sterilization or air gun administered birth control. The most immediate and cost effective solution is to harvest these deer on an annual basis. If we had feral dogs wandering around town, they would be removed. If we had wild cows grazing on the courthouse lawn, they would be removed. Feral dogs and cows are not tolerated in Port Townsend. Let’s add deer to the list as well.
by Jim Scarantino | Feb 3, 2020 | General
Jefferson County will be just fine even if the models predicting global warming prove accurate. We will face no inconvenience other than more rain.
Don’t take it from us. Listen to University of Washington meteorologist Cliff Mass. He has been working with a team of very able and qualified researchers, using the best computers, running the most reliable climate change models. He has found that Jefferson County, along with much of Washington State, will be in a “sweet spot” even if the most realistically dire computer scenarios come to pass. “A compelling case can be made that the Pacific Northwest will be one of the best places to live as the earth warms,” he and his team of researchers have concluded. Read their conclusions in more detail here and here.
Mass believes the earth is warming and that increased warmth in the atmosphere will induce a changing climate. But he has stated repeatedly that “we do not face an “existential threat” and that there is no scientific basis for raising alarms about a “climate emergency.”
“There are so many local politicians, media outlets and activist groups painting a depressing, fearful picture of our future regarding global warming. They are wrong.” Dr. Cliff Mass, University of Washington meteorologist
What about dreaded sea level rise? Not a problem for the Olympic Peninsula or most of Washington, the UW team has concluded, except for the area around Long Beach. To the contrary, much of the Washington coast is RISING as we continue to emerge from the last Ice Age and the land springs back.
What about increasing drought and water scarcity? The opposite, increased flooding due to increased precipitation, is what the UW researchers predict. Mass and his team are urging better storm water channeling and construction of larger reservoirs.
What about increasingly “extreme weather”? Not to worry, Mass and his team of researchers assure us. We should not even worry about significantly worse wind storms.
Heat waves and more destructive wildfires? Governor Inslee has raised alarms about the state burning up as it dries out due to runaway temperature spikes and heat waves. But the scientists don’t see what Inslee sees. A cooling Pacific Ocean (it has been cooling for 35 years) will continue to produce moderate temperatures for the Pac NW. Increasing fires are likely only on the eastern slopes, and there the solution, according to Mass & Co., is reversing decades of forest mismanagement and discouraging building close to or within forest boundaries.
Mass and fellow researchers do see temperatures very slowly rising, but not rapidly and only noticeably towards the end of the century.
Local climate alarmists (dare we say, climate alarm manipulators and exploiters) who sit on the Jefferson County Climate Action Committee and the Public Health Board are talking about declaring a “climate emergency.” An emergency declaration could be used to restrict just about every personal and commercial activity, to increase taxes and fees and impose a wide array of regulations on land use and energy consumption.
The City of Everett is considering declaring a climate emergency as a prelude to draconian and unprecedented regulatory measures. Mass has criticized that effort on the grounds that Everett, like all of the Puget Sound, does not face a climate emergency, at least if you bother to consult the best science coming out of the University of Washington’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences.
In 2017 the Jefferson County Commission declared a “housing emergency” as an excuse to seek a property tax increase for the alleged purpose of providing affordable housing. Voters saw through that ruse and soundly defeated the scheme, known as “Prop 1.”
County Commissioner Kate Dean, who pushed the “housing emergency” and Prop 1 campaigns, is playing a central role in promoting a “climate emergency.”. Kees Kolff, chair of the Climate Action Committee, a hospital commissioner and member of the Public Health Board along with Dean, may be pushing even harder in order to accelerate implementation of strict measures called for in a climate action plan he helped draft.
Dean and Kolff intend to roll out their effort over coming months, perhaps culminating about the time of Earth Day with public hearings, a “charette,” that Dean discussed at the last Public Health Board meeting. Even though climate science is against them, they and local activists still seek to use their political power to achieve declaration of a climate emergency, followed by implementation of restrictions on the use of fossil fuels, wood burning, construction, vehicle choice and usage, the mill and marine industries, and a wide range of personal and commercial activities.
We will continue to follow their effort to declare a “climate emergency” in Jefferson County.
In the meantime, it is worth noting that Dr. Mass is not alone in decrying political maneuvering to declare a climate emergency. On September 29, 2019, 500 scientists delivered a letter to the United Nations very clearly stating, “There is no climate emergency.” You can read about that at this link. For the letter itself and list of signatories, click here.
now full of trash–a discarded tire, broken gate, plastic, construction waste–and showing signs of severe erosion. The encampment itself is a heap of soggy sleeping bags, discarded clothing, loose garbage, bags of unknown items, and what appeared to be drug paraphernalia. More than one person has set up camp in the heart of what was once a very nice neighborhood.
