Frequently Asked Questions:
1. “How can the Coal Free Bellingham initiative achieve this when all we’ve heard is that the City of Bellingham doesn’t have any power to do anything about coal train traffic?”
2. “Is the work of the Coal Free Bellingham group different from that of the traditional environmental groups working to stop the transportation and export of coal?”
3. “Why do we need a local initiative to pass an ordinance when we have all those environmental laws already in place?”
4. “How will the Coal-Free Bellingham Community Bill of Rights ordinance stop the coal trains?”
5. “Why is the initiative focused upon the City of Bellingham and not the entire County?”
6. “What is the difference between this petition and the other one being circulated?”
7. “Why can only people registered in Bellingham sign the Coal-Free Bellingham petition? What about people who live outside the Bellingham city limits?”
8. “What if I’m not sure if I already signed the Coal-Free Bellingham petition? What happens if I accidently sign it twice?”
9. “Don’t federal laws control interstate commerce? Won’t the city of Bellingham be sued and your ordinance to stop the coal trains simply overturned?”
10. “If the City of Bellingham gets sued to stop the ordinance, and the court rules against us, won’t the taxpayers have to pay all legal costs?”
11. “Your ordinance grants legal rights to nature. Does this mean that someone will be able to sue their neighbor for mowing their lawn?”
12. ”Will the Bellingham Community Bill of Rights detract from the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) process being undertaken for the county’s consideration of the Gateway Pacific coal export terminal?”
13. “The trains have been coming through Bellingham long before you people in Bellingham boughtproperty close to the tracks. You’re all just a bunch of NIMBYs – if you stop the trains from coming through Bellingham, they’ll just go through someone else’s backyard.”
14. “If you succeed with your ordinance to stop the coal trains, what is to stop someplace else, like Mt. Vernon for example, from deciding to block shipments of something we need?”
_____________________________________________________________________________
1. “How can the Coal Free Bellingham initiative achieve this when all we’ve heard is that the City of Bellingham doesn’t have any power to do anything about coal train traffic?”
Following the traditional regulatory framework we’re all so used to, Bellingham would remain virtually powerless to say no to coal. Our ordinance, however, stands upon the foundation of rights-based activism … similar to what has allowed the City of Pittsburgh to stop natural gas fracking within its city limits and what over 150 other municipalities around the country have done to stop fracking and other corporate assaults like industrial hog farms, bottling water, spreading toxic sludge and the like. (Read more: www.celdf.org)
The Bellingham Community Bill of Rights begins with the following language “… the residents of the City of Bellingham possess the inherent and inalienable right to govern their own community, on the basis, without limitation, of the Declaration of Independence’s declaration that governments are instituted to secure the rights of people” and of the Washington Constitution’s recognition that “All political power is inherent in the people.”
This much is clear…unless we assert our right to self-governance, our community will be dealing with the negative impacts from the transport of 48 million tons of coal per year through our community. In addition to the multiple daily coal trains already carrying coal through Bellingham on their way up to British Columbia, we will be forced to accommodate 18 more mile and a half long, uncovered coal trains rumbling along our waterfront throughout the day and night.
Unless we, the citizens of Bellingham, stand up and assert our right to make decisions governing our community… corporate executives, managing from afar will assert their right to exploit our community’s environmental and economic assets purely for their profit-making coal export venture.
2. “Is the work of the Coal Free Bellingham group different from that of the traditional environmental groups working to stop the transportation and export of coal?”
Traditional environmental groups work within the existing legal framework of environmental laws. Our group’s community rights-based legal framework is clearly different than the traditional regulatory approach to environmental protection. The goals and objectives of these two different frameworks may match, but their strategies and tactics differ substantially.
Which framework – which strategy – which tactics – will successfully stop coal trains from traveling through Bellingham? From our perspective, the regulatory approach appears too little/too late, others may believe that our rights-based approach is too much/ too soon. Link to “Working with our Allies”
In effect, the environmental laws say that there are very specific and limited things that the public can complain about, and that there are very specific and limited things that companies will be required to do to “mitigate” (i.e.: lessen the offense or symptom) the harm that their projects will cause. Above all, the projects – projects which will cause harm – are going to be approved.
Through the existing environmental laws, we can rarely stop a harmful project. Sometimes, we can rally the troops and scream loud enough such that the regulators and decision makers mitigate the most negative environmental impacts. We can pare off the most egregious harms around the edges. Often we can delay the project. But, in the end, the project gets approved. If an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was done, the completed project most likely proceeds to cause the harms that the EIS predicted that it would.
Typically an EIS results in several options for decision makers to choose from. Nothing within existing environmental laws and regulations says that the decision makers must choose the least harmful option. Read Why? (PDF)
“Current environmental regulatory structures are mostly about “permitting” certain harms to occur – acting more to legalize the activities of corporations and other business entities than to protect our natural and human communities.” Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF)
3. “Why do we need a local initiative to pass an ordinance when we have all those environmental laws already in place?”
We believe that our community rights-based ordinance, championed by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF) represents our community’s best chance to stop coal trafficking. Our initiative effort is anchored to the premise that we want to STOP coal trafficking and its potential negative impacts on our community and the environment – not regulate it.
We’re not willing to rely upon the regulatory approach to permitting which is designed to mitigate – not prevent harm. We have little hope that the regulations in place to mitigate potential environmental and economic harms to our community will stand up to the billions of dollars of corporate investment in profiting from the extraction and exportation of coal. Regulatory oversight is important in its own right. However, in the situation we face with the proposed coal terminal at Cherry Point and the negative environmental, health and economic impacts our community will suffer from the coal trains, we consider it too little, too late. Why?
We, the members of Coal Free Bellingham, look around and observe that every natural system on the planet is disintegrating before our eyes. It’s no wonder that the average age of our Steering Committee is 58. Most every one of us has lived through the first environmental crisis of the ‘70’s out of which emerged what we thought would be the stellar laws of our time……… among them the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act. We thought some light was visible at the end of the tunnel. Read more
However, as the decades have passed, the legal and legislative battles between environmentally destructive projects and communities fighting to protect their health as well as their natural and economic resources have been won predominately by the corporate interests behind these projects. More regulations and more laws theoretically enacted to protect citizens and our environment; the people win a few “skirmishes”, and yet, it is now clear we are losing the war.
4. “How will the Coal-Free Bellingham Community Bill of Rights ordinance stop the coal trains?”
Once the ordinance is passed, the companies involved will not be able to certify to their respective insurance companies that they are in compliance with all federal, state and local laws.
If the ordinance is ultimately upheld in the courts, then Bellingham citizens’ rights to self-determination and the recognition of our natural world’s right to exist will trump the rights of corporations to exploit the economic and environmental assets of our community. The ordinance will then remain in place and stop the transportation of coal through our city.
Additionally, the ordinance itself says that either the city or any resident may receive monetary damages and/or an injunction (i.e.: a court order) against a company that violates the ordinance.
If our ordinance is struck down in the courts when challenged by SSA (and the enormous legal team provided by their financial backer Goldman Sachs) – this action would lay out in living color for the rest of the country to see how unbalanced and corrupted our legal system has become in its protection of corporate interests above those of citizens and the ecosystems within a given community.
During the civil rights movement, Sheriff Bull Connor of Birmingham, Alabama brought out fire hoses and police attack dogs against elementary school children who were just trying to sit down at a lunch counter. The country was outraged.
The corporate sledge hammer coming down on our ordinance would be the same sort of catalyzing event.
Either way, we will have set the stage for fundamental changes in our legal system that MUST occur in order to reclaim the rights of communities to self-governance as well as the rights of nature not to be destroyed in the name of profit.
5. “Why is the initiative focused upon the City of Bellingham and not the entire County?”
Our ultimate hope is that all municipalities along the entire coal train route launch their own, similar ordinance. We want to stop the transportation of coal everywhere!. Read more
Focusing initially upon Bellingham provides the most likely chance for a timely victory in this fight. A large number of the city’s residents are directly affected by the existing coal train traffic and are outraged that the proposed Gateway Pacific coal shipping terminal will add as many as 18 mile and a half long trains traversing through the city every day, and throughout the night. Plans for Bellingham’s future downtown waterfront development are placed in jeopardy by the major disruption as well as the health and safety issues resulting from coal train traffic. (Coal Facts and Links for more information)
The number of signatures needed to get our ordinance on the upcoming election ballot for Bellingham voters is far less than required for a county-wide initiative. And, given the current voting demographics, Bellingham voters are far more likely to support this ordinance.
The last thing we want is to succeed with a Bellingham ordinance and watch the trafficking head east along the Route 9 corridor – or anywhere else. Our goal is to stop all coal transport. The age of coal has come and gone… everywhere!
We believe that aiming to protect Bellingham is the most likely path to start this snowballing effect of numerous ordinances – the creation of many ‘dots’ along the rail transportation lines that begin to connect their own path to stopping coal in its tracks.
6. “What is the difference between this petition and the other one being circulated?”
There has been a petition circulating throughout Whatcom County since last summer that is addressed
to Peter Goldmark, Washington State Commissioner of Public Lands asking him to deny SSA’s application
to build the Gateway Pacific coal export facility at Cherry Point. The petition to Goldmark is NOT an
actual citizens’ initiative to place an issue on a ballot as is Coal-Free Bellingham’s petition. Also, our petition has only been circulating for signatures since March 6th, 2012. The important difference is that signing Coal-Free Bellingham’s petition is telling the Bellingham City Council to place our initiative, the Bellingham Community Bill of Rights, on the November election ballot so the voters can decide.
7. “Why can only people registered in Bellingham sign the Coal-Free Bellingham petition? What about people who live outside the Bellingham city limits?”
This is a city-wide initiative as opposed to a county-wide initiative. Only those registered to vote in the
city of Bellingham are eligible to sign the Coal-Free Bellingham petition which will place the initiative
on Bellingham’s November presidential election ballot. There is growing interest throughout Whatcom
County to adopt a similar ordinance that asserts the citizens’ rights to say no to North America’s largest
coal export terminal. Some members of the Coal-Free Bellingham group have begun meeting with
people from the entire county who are determined to organize a similar initiative for all of Whatcom
County. (If you’re interested in getting involved with the Whatcom County-wide effort please email:
[email protected]
8. “What if I’m not sure if I already signed the Coal-Free Bellingham petition? What happens if I accidently sign it twice?”
It is against the law to KNOWINGLY sign an official voter petition such as ours more than once.
However, even if uncertain or confused about whether you have signed the Coal-Free Bellingham
petition previously, you may legally sign the petition and the auditor’s office will only consider your first signature as being valid.
Back to FAQ list
9. “Don’t federal laws control interstate commerce? Won’t the city of Bellingham be sued and your ordinance to stop the coal trains simply overturned?”
135 of the approximate 140 existing rights-based ordinances around the U.S. have been successful
in stopping various corporate assaults on their communities. 5 have been appealed in court and 2 of
those 5 communities repealed their ordinance for fear of the financial implications of a successful legal
corporate challenge. The other 3 remain involved in the legal appeal process.
Traditionally, for over 100 years, the railroads have had the upper hand and local communities have
little authority to prevent or stop actions that are economically or environmentally harmful to a
community. However, our ordinance confronts these federal pre-emption laws by claiming that
prohibiting the transport of coal is a reasonable protective measure for our community to take against a
harm that violates the rights established within our ordinance.
10. “If the City of Bellingham gets sued to stop the ordinance, and the court rules against us, won’t the taxpayers have to pay all legal costs?”
The City would be liable for some administrative legal expenses such as court filings, photocopies, etc.
However, the legal team of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund has agreed to defend our
ordinance from any legal challenge pro bono.
11. “Your ordinance grants legal rights to nature. Does this mean that someone will be able to sue their neighbor for mowing their lawn?”
No, our ordinance will not be able to provide a legal basis for someone to be sued for mowing their
lawn! The statements in the Community Bill of Rights relate to granting rights to ecosystems (like a
forest, a watershed, clean air) to ensure these precious resources upon which humans depend have the
right to exist in a healthy condition. Until nature has inherent rights, a tree or clean water or a healthy
climate does not enter into a cost/benefit analysis. Presently, natural systems are considered property
to be bought and sold.
Below is a discussion about granting nature rights from an article: “Should natural ecosystems like coral
reefs have legal rights?” – April 26, 2011 by Brian Blank:
“Giving rights to natural systems may not be saying cutting down a tree is equivalent to murder but it is
touching on the notion that humans (currently have) inalienable rights to destroy communal entities like
streams, forests, and even coral reefs. Proposals like this one would allow people to claim guardianship
of threatened natural resources, along the lines of how a family or friend may look after someone who is
unable to legally represent their own interests.
As University of Southern California law professor Christopher Stone noted in his 1972 article
titled, ‘Should Trees Have Standing?’ that appeared in Southern California Law Review, there are
established legal traditions that recognize many non-human entities, from corporations to ships, as full-
fledged people for legal purposes, so why not natural systems?
‘Each time there is a movement to confer rights onto some new ‘entity,’ the proposal is bound to sound
odd or frightening or laughable,’ wrote Stone. ‘This is partly because until the rightless thing receives its rights, we cannot see it as anything but a thing for the use of us.’”
12. ”Will the Bellingham Community Bill of Rights detract from the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) process being undertaken for the county’s consideration of the Gateway Pacific coal export terminal?”
Coal-Free Bellingham’s action does not detract from the EIS effort at all! Many of us in Coal-Free
Bellingham are also engaged in the EIS process since there is a possibility that this regulatory approach
may work. That said, we strongly believe it is basically a flawed system guided by laws that favor
corporations’ legal rights over the rights of citizens. It’s imperative to keep the pressure on our elected
officials and regulatory agencies; we must all write emails and speak out at public hearings. But,
we cannot rely upon a system that is unjustly rigged to favor corporate interests over those of our
community. We need to do more! And, that is what Coal-Free Bellingham is proposing.
13. “The trains have been coming through Bellingham long before you people in Bellingham boughtproperty close to the tracks. You’re all just a bunch of NIMBYs – if you stop the trains from coming through Bellingham, they’ll just go through someone else’s backyard.”
This is an opinion and not a question, but we want to address this concern. We think that we must
stand up and do something to protect our local economy, environment and general well-being when
threatened by the very real prospect of an additional 18 mile and a half long coal trains rumbling along
our coastline and through the heart of our waterfront development project all throughout the day and
night.
“Protectionism is a legitimate power of a self-governing community. Why should a community’s right
to protect itself ever be called into question…………… isn’t seeing to its general welfare a community’s
purpose? And protectionism not only a right, but also a duty?” – Jane Anne Morris.
14. “If you succeed with your ordinance to stop the coal trains, what is to stop someplace else, like Mt. Vernon for example, from deciding to block shipments of something we need?”
If the shipment of certain materials presents a clear and present danger to a community, they should be
able to block it.
If the materials shipped do not threaten the protections described in our Bill of Rights then the ban
would not legally stand.