Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Because They Said So!

At least one legal definition of collusion says it is an agreement between two or more individuals to perpetuate fraud or commit an illegal act. Is that what our Planning Commissioners did on May 25, 2012?

Normally, collusion occurs in secret, but apparently the Planning Commission has the chutzpah to engage in potentially illegal "votes" out in the open, during a recorded public meeting.  They took a "straw poll" to shut down debate on an important deliberative aspect of the Fish and Wildlife Habitat CAO before even considering the facts.  

Bias. What this "straw poll" shows is bias. Pure and simple prejudice expressed on the record and for the purpose of cutting off debate and discussion.

All shorelines here are critical. If you want to know why, ask one of the Planning Commissioners who voted to shut down debate before it had even begun. The only answer they can give you is "because we said so."

All in the interests of "moving forward," as Susan Dehlendorf says. That's a euphemism meaning that you and your rights get run over so they can "move forward."


6 comments:

  1. I am puzzled why you think that the PC "majority" would need to know what the law requires them to do -- the "majority" know what they (and their friends) WANT to have happen -- banning all further development of the shoreline. I guess that once-the-Chair-always-the-chair-Dehlendorf doesn't know where to get the legal answers that would be required for rational decisionmaking in this context. (1-800-Randy?) Let's just "get this done" and litigate about it later, at taxpayer expense. At least the Planning Commission "majority" won't have to deal with these pesky details any more. Who cares if they just decided to declare every inch of County shoreline "critical" area?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Klaatu barada niktoJune 6, 2012 at 7:47 PM

    The fun thing about being in the majority is that you get to bully everyone else, do what ever you want, steal the lunch money and laugh all the way to the bank. My God this woman reminds me of Leona Helmsley: "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes." Who died and left Dehlendorf to play God?

    ReplyDelete
  3. It just reaffirms my view that so much of the process we are witnessing with the County, CAO and SMP is nothing but a charade. The answers are already in their heads and they are simply holding meeting and hearing so that they can later say that they engaged the public and had full and fair deliberation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So, every bit of County shoreline is "critical" for fish and wildlife habitat? And some are "super-critical"? Because orcas eat salmon and salmon eat forage fish and forage fish eat insects in streams? Orcas also breathe oxygen--is all that critical habitat as well? If so, shouldn't these folks stop taking it away from the orcas?

    What's wrong with our current setbacks/buffers? If all of our shoreline is critical habitat, we must be doing something right, right?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Concerned IslanderJune 7, 2012 at 2:24 PM

    So, the Planning commission decides that it need not decide whether all of our current shoreline is critical habitat area--it will just proceed to review new regulatory restriction on all the shoreline as if the entire shoreline is all critical habitat. Isn't this like not bothering to consider whether the President is authorised to order the assassination of an American citizen for terrorism, but proceeding to discuss in great detail what calibre ammunition must be used?

    ReplyDelete
  6. You people seem to have contracted the "So" disease from the planning mafia.

    ReplyDelete