___________________________________________________
April 2, 201
To: Lovel Pratt - San Juan South, Rich
Peterson - San Juan North, Howie Rosenfeld - Friday Harbor Richard Fralick - Orcas West, Patty Miller - Orcas East, Jamie Stephens -
Lopez/Shaw, Ingrid Gabriel, Clerk of the Council
Subject: CAO Comments and NCA
In recent months I have been reading, studying, and
discussing the issues surrounding the proposed critical area ordinance. My family has deep roots here as my
father started the highschool on Lopez and the Clinic is named after my mother. As a native Lopez Islander, I have seen a lot of changes over the
years but they have been gradual and mostly positive to allow for moderate and
smart growth in our County.
In Dr. Adamus’s own words, there are no study results to determine
real findings in attempting to control pollution for example. He says that the drivers behind this
proposal are “somewhat hypothetical and precautionary”. The actual nitrogen pollutant levels
have had some cursory looks by some learned people and appear to be far lower
that the minimum threshold viewed as potentially harmful.
It is no secret that special interest groups have worked
hard to persuade or threaten our officials into adopting legislation that will
be far more restrictive than what is required in the “review and revise if
necessary” requirement by the GMA.
I have also learned that some public “input” has been minimized while
some Planning Commission input and County staff input has been of the more
restrictive variety based upon individual beliefs in those groups. I have always thought that “we the
people” are the ones to whom our elected officials listen to and work for but
things have changed. What I see
now is a collaborative decision making process using consensus by the governing
bodies to make and decide new public policy. This leads me to the emotions of sadness, frustration, and
some anger I feel when trying to understand really why such a regulation is
being rail roaded through our county government. We the people are about to be required to hand over a bundle
of rights (property and civil rights) to our local (and higher) governments.
The following is a list of items that were discussed at a
meeting of locals (many “old timers”) which cause me concern and I would like
feedback for clarification. They
may not all be true but I am on a quest for truth at the moment as a citizen
and tax payer in San Juan County. Please
help me out.
1. The property owners in SJC are presumed guilty until they
prove themselves innocent regarding the issues of the CAO. This is in contrast to Skagit County
where the opposite is true, they are presumed innocent of violations unless
proven guilty regarding their CAO and their land use. The Skagit County CAO is reportedly much less strict and is
pro farming.
2. Dr. Adamus redefined the definition of a wetland which
takes us here in SJC from 900 wetlands to 2700 wetlands. To me this is huge when the new wider
buffers are added and apparently under the new ordinance, 78% of all tax
parcels in SJC are “touched” by the new rules.
3. Under the guise of protecting these newly found wetlands
come the list of “thou shalt nots” restricting such things as excavating or tree cutting, with
certain caveats. I got a copy of
the general portion of the ordinance that was passed in January and tried to
make sense of it and see where these items mentioned were found and it was hard
to understand because it is more of a legalese type of document rather than one
which the common person can comprehend.
I understand that there is a more recent version which I took a quick
look at and the language was a little more clear but could be simplified, like
a FAQ sheet version.
4. I attended meetings off and on over the last few years
regarding the CAO and I do remember a county person being in attendance with a
pencil in hand and writing some notes.
I was told by reputable people that little public meeting input was used
in making the final ordinance draft.
If true, this should be illegal and certainly unethical.
5. I have a number of friends that make their living from
farming here on Lopez. They see
this ordinance as the end of a lifelong effort to grow crops and animals for
local use. These products have
become known as some of the best in the region if not the country. The island used to have over 5000
people on it and was 70% agriculture while the fish runs were at all time
highs. Farming is part of our
heritage and creates the environment that we hold dear today.
6. Back in the 60s when I was in high school here, we
started to get the Californian influx which brought people here that put up
fences and posted no trespassing signs.
With that influx came some who thought they knew better how things
should be run here and began to change things. In more recent years we have seen special interest groups
come in here who, in my view, see themselves as the “Saviors” of the Islands
and apparently have pushed their agenda with the County officials. The locals see these efforts as a power
and control grab which is at the heart of the matter rather than trying to save
the environment from the evil hands of the current or future property owners.
7. Perhaps one of the most disturbing things is the way the
county expects to enforce the new regulations by encouraging neighbors to spy and turn in their neighbors for
any “suspicious” activity. This is
similar to how dictatorships have operated historically in seeking out offenders and punishing
people. This will change our culture
from the tight community that it has been to one where there is always an
element of fear and lack of trust present.
8. There was discussion about what it will take to recall the
council people who vote for it. I
would say that there is a fair chance that a petition to do so may become a reality.
9. Lastly, If this goes through as is, there will be a fair
amount of litigation from property owners against the County, especially those
with money. The county and us tax
payers will be the ones paying to fight ourselves. Also, the passage of the ordinance will be a huge negative
economic loss in terms of property values and business losses. A case in point would be if you own a
non conforming property under the new ordinance. Who is going to want to pay what
that property has been worth with the stigma that the new ordinance will impose
in regard to future potential of the property. This will be more pronounced with the Shoreline Management
portion upcoming.
I would also like to make a comment about the proposed
National Conservation Area legislation.
I talked with a local woman who recently went to D.C to promote passage
of the bill. I encourage you to take
a close look at local impact to
all our citizens rather than just quickly endorsing this change in ownership. We
need to have the bill language published to the local citizens and they be
given opportunity to see what is actually in the bill and what impact it will
have on them plus what other options are available. We all know that changes to the bill can be made at any time
until passage and that could not be what we desire. I see this as a knee jerk attempt to quickly get this
through congress politically before a possible administration change takes
place. This is not just my opinion
but what the local advocate person told me. There also is a multi millionaire adjacent land owner here
on Lopez who also may have selfish motives to see this pushed through quickly. My advice is slow it down and let’s
have a closer look which is what we deserve rather than a slam dunk.
Thank you for allowing me to speak my mind on these subjects
and I leave my case with you for fairness and wisdom in decision making.
Charlie Washburn
Lopez Island
It would be good to learn a bit more about the backgrounds of current PC appointees. Are they old-timers? New-comers? How long have they been on the PC? Who appointed them? What other offices/positions have these folks held? Do or have any of them served together on other boards/committees? There is some information that one of the current Commissioners served as the PC chair some years back while simultaneously serving in a leadership capacity with the San Juan Preservation Trust only a few years after moving to the islands. Some readers would be interested in additional biographical information, if it is in the public domain.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. Many people have been clamoring for an answer to those same questions, and TH will begin posting to the "Central Casting" tab shortly. That tab has received hundreds of hits even without any content, so imagine what it will be like once something is actually there! Stay tuned and look for something to show up in the next couple of weeks.
ReplyDeleteI'm especially interested in Charlie's mention of the population having been 5000. When was that? and how about the other islands? Does anyone know?
ReplyDeleteAs to Charlie's points 1 and 7, you may wish to take note of the Common Sense Alliance chart comparing the current enforcement regs to those now proposed by the CPDP. Its in the CSA website document library re the CPDP. I don't think you will enjoy the comparison, but do think it ought to be front page news.
ReplyDelete