Sunday, April 28, 2013

Speaking For The Fish

Despite the continuing mayhem about the CAOs, this year is likely to be dominated by shoreline discussions related to the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) update. From CAO testimony, we have already had a prologue of what these discussions might look like.

Watch the clips below to hear Barbara Rosenkotter of the County (and formerly of the Byers campaign) speak for the fish. Then watch Jim Slocomb speak on behalf of the Marine Resources Committee (MRC) in recommending that all shorelines be considered critical ... essentially because fish need water and fish might use any of the marine water in the county at some point or other.  The Rosenkotter/Slocomb view is that "protection" means that every inch of shoreline in our county has to be designated as critical.

This raises a major question that our County government has yet to wrap its head around. Are we protecting "areas of use" or "areas needed for population viability?" The CAOs say we are required to protect population viability.

But that isn't the view of the Salmon Recovery Lead Entity or the MRC in these video clips.

Note: we apologize for the A/V sync issues but they are on the original video from the County.


45 comments:

  1. The "Salmon Recovery Lead Entity" has been funded now for what--a decade?--and what exactly has it accomplished, other than funding positions for the semi-educated science-wannabes and control freaks who occupy a small but influential part of the islands? How many dollars spent? How many linear feet cleaned or fixed? HOnestly, does anyone ever ask these questions?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The MRC was a committee. It has morphed in to a full blown quasi department. Recently, the out of control nature of this agency was demonstrated when Linda Lyshall told the council that "she doesn't report to them". Any question that they are out of control? They have secured enough grant funding for 2 or 3 paid positions, including Lyshall. Read her history, strong involvement with the ongoing Eco-criminal enterprise known as the Puget Sound Partnership.
    You realize your tax dollars give these people grant money and half their time is spent seeking next years grant funding so they can continue to get grants?
    This needs to be taken back to committee only status. Let the current grants expire and do not allow staff to apply for anymore.
    They are "supervised" by the CDP director. God help us all if the promote Hale to this role.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Isn't Shireene involved in the SMP update? We are screwed if her hand is allowed to be involved any further. Hasn't her arrogance and utter incompetence been clearly demonstrated in the CAO process?
    She is allowed to continue? Call council and demand action.
    TH, perhaps you can compose a short brief outlining her misfeasance, incompetence, and ethical lapses. Shouldn't take more than 200 pages or so.
    Might be helpful to draw it all together in a single document.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rather than preparing a 200-page summary of Hale's problems, just link to the product. Reading the new rule is enough to persuade anyone that her ship needs to sail.

    ReplyDelete
  5. According to Rosenkotter, "local studies show an abundance of juvenile salmon, forage fish, and hexanbest (or whatever the technical term for Lin cod is).
    Sounds like there is no problem other than unspent grant funds.
    Let's take a quick look. We have buffets and setbacks. They have been in place for decades. SJ island waters and habitats have been declared by numerous agencies and scientists as "pristine".
    Planning for the sake of planning is what we need to get rid of.
    "Speak for the fish"? This nonsense coming from a paid MRC staff member?
    Let me speak for the salmon. "hey guys, me and my brothers have been placed on this earth by our Crearor to be a part of a FOOD CHAIN. You messed up our waters in the middle to early part of the last century but after we showed up en masse, all of your efforts have been well received and we enjoy our pristine homes.
    If we the salmon could offer a suggestion, please do something about these massive genocidal Orca Whales that come through our homes and whole sale slaughter our kind in numbers that would be shocking to any sane observer."

    ReplyDelete
  6. This Slocumb clown has been on the MRC for 17 years. Time to get new people on board. Period.

    Also, applying for reappointment is long time member Michael Durland. You may or may not know him as owner of the Deer Harbor Boatworks.
    Take a quick view of this place on an overhead google earth photo and tell me, is this good for the "near shore environment"?
    A lot that is entirely covered with pavement or gravel and buildings, housing old junked out boats and vehicles, right next to the shore.
    It is crap like this, having someone with all this BS on the water being on a committee that is making recommendations to others on how to best use their property for the common good of salmon that is a further example of hypocrisy.
    Contact your council members and tell them to not reappoint Jim Slocumb and Michael Durland. They have already served 25 years combined on the MRC. These committees are for citizen participation, not one sided monopolies.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Actually, I'd say that the shoreline is exactly where a boatyard belongs. That boatyard was permitted decades ago, and has a right to exist there. The Shoreline Master Act was supposed to protect those uses in the shoreline. Not that you can tell from shoreline planners. CDP is trying to run him out of business with bogus claims, and it is plain wrong. Sorry it's not all tidy but this is not Disneyland--yet.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @4:28 I agree about Slocomb, but I agree with @5:22 about Durland. That poor business owner has encountered nearly every dirty trick that can be played on a boatyard owner by the county, the friends, his neighbors. You name it, and Durland has experienced it. We do need representatives of working shorelines on the MRC.


    ReplyDelete
  9. It is always good, in my view, to take a first look at the big picture, the bold stroke, then move to the smaller stuff.

    Do the residents of the San Juan Islands NEED this MRC? Is this MRC a productive getting things done entity or is it just ceremony?

    Here's a hint: There are MANY Federal and State AND private groups working themselves to death on marine resources, why oh why would little old SJC dream we need to put another oar in the water?

    The redundancy of the MRC in the big picture begs the question of why? Why does this tiny governmental spot thinks this committee is needed to serve the people who live here, or even the fish.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You know Speaking for the fish the salmon run #s are down not because of our shorelines but because of a decision by Judge Bolt in the 70s to allow native Americans to net the rivers. Now not only are they netting but they are drift netting and pounding the allowable passing water to scare the fish into their nets. Up until I believe the early 90s most sewers from waterfront homes emptied into the shoreline, and the salmon #s were a lot better then than they are now. Let’s be honest Barbara and call it what it is. A Trojan horse to stop growth an obtain grant money to do so!

    ReplyDelete
  11. I would like to offer the following suggestion to the TH.

    Have a booth at the county fair. I thought of some great ideas. Have a few cardboard cutouts labeled "anonymous" manning the booth all day.

    Then, to attach people for the spirit of the fair, have a pencil throwing contest.

    I will buy a TH T-Shirt as soon as they are printed!!

    Thanks to everyone here for the hard work and investigations. Keep uncovering the rats on these islands.

    ReplyDelete
  12. In case anyone doesn't think that the SMP will be another clusterdorf, here is a sample, just from the first page or 2.
    (Proposed)
    18.50.060 (C)
    To minimize adverse impacts to shoreline ecological functions, the 75 linear feet between the first 35 feet landward of the OHWM or the top of the bank and 110 feet landward of the OHWM or the top of the bank is required to retain 21% tree canopy cover.

    Any Questions?

    ReplyDelete
  13. @2:40am

    In the spirit of the CAO, shouldn't the 21% tree canopy cover be site and tree specific? Do we know that 21% cover by Douglas Fir is the same as 21% cover by Alder? Perhaps there is some BAS to guide us? Maybe we can get Dr. Adamus to advise us again.

    ReplyDelete
  14. With such a specific percentage of 21, one can only guess at the stressed out brain work, and phony BAS, it took to come up with that little diddy of a number.

    Actually real science is in a constant drift in all directions most of the time; how the State Legislature came up with this BAS idea is beyond me. The BAS mandate will never ever work.

    As in: AVAILABLE WHEN?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Wouldn't this just be 110 feet from OHWM?
    Or am I reading this correctly, for the first 35 feet from OHWM, you don't have to maintain anything, clear away, but stop at 35 feet out until 110 feet out.

    As vague and arbitrary as the 21% was, it almost made the most sense, sort of.
    What we need is Shireene to get involved and help clear this up.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Kit Rawson (and not afraid to say it)April 29, 2013 at 2:16 PM

    Hey 4/28 @ 7:40 PM -- GFY (it means "good for you", by the way). If you are so ignorant about treaties and the law why don't you just move back to wherever you came from. I will be back in the country later this year and would love to talk to you about treaty rights, if you choose to identify yourself, coward. But until you do that, please don't talk about stuff that you obviously know nothing about. Or, just leave (and close the door on your way out).

    ReplyDelete
  17. Kit Rawson (and not afraid to say it)April 29, 2013 at 2:26 PM

    4/28 @ 4:28 PM -- GFY (It means "good for you", by the way). Those two are 10 times the person you are or will ever be. Jim and Michael are people of real character whom I count as friends. You, on the other hand, are ... well, clearly a coward and surely a whole lot worse. Either make those statements backed up by your name, or just leave (and close the door on your way out).

    It is a real shame that some of the people who criticize the positions taken by some of the folks mentioned here won't step up and condemn the type of anonymous abuse being directed at them. Frankly, that speaks poorly of your characters as well, folks.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Kit Rawson (and not afraid to say it)April 29, 2013 at 2:49 PM

    And, regarding the main post .. . Ed ("who's Ed?"), as the only person apparently who has ever posted a non-anonymous main post on Trojan Heron, let me say that you are way off base. Yes, all of San Juan County's shorelines should be critical habitat in the CAO. This follows from the fact that they are critical habitat for a number of species listed under the Endangered Species Act as well as for many other marine species and species complexes. The county received testimony to this effect fro a number of sources. The San Juan Islands are a unique and special area biologically, and we have many laws to protect such places. These laws were developed by humans for the benefit of humans because this is the only planet that we have, and the natural processes that are protected (well, they haven't been protected very well, but that's the intent of the laws anyway) by them are necessary for our survival. Your attempt to discredit good people who are trying to help implement those laws in a sensible way speaks very poorly of your character and of your knowledge of the natural world and what is required for human beings to survive here. More importantly, it shows that you are willing to destroy people's reputations for some political gain. Environmentalists are often told that they don't care about people. It seems to me that the way people are treated like dirt here shows who really doesn't care about people.

    Your sponsorship of this blog that gives people an opportunity to anonymously attack and attempt to destroy their neighbors (and my friends) is shameful, and you should be condemned for it. The fact that so many have just let this ride for so long without speaking out speaks very poorly for all of them.

    One thing that I will do for sure is to stick up for people who are my friends and whom I know to be good people of good character. If you want a fight, you've got it. Previously, I invited you to lunch so you could ask me questions directly rather than snooping around on the internet for dirt about me. You never took me up on that, and I withdraw that invitation now. Clearly you don't want communication, just conflict.

    I am sorry that you have seen fit to create this fantastic world where everyone who doesn't agree with you is part of some vast conspiracy. You talk about the problem that doesn't exist. The only problem that doesn't exist is the problem of the mythical network that is out to get you and your friends.

    It has gone too far for me now because you are unfairly and dishonestly picking on people who are good people and who are my friends. It is time for everyone to stand up and condemn these tactics as well as the people (mainly cowards who hide behind anonymity) who use them. Again, I am incredibly disappointed that so many people have let this go on for so long.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Kit, I don't see anywhere in the original post where the TH is "picking on" anyone.
    The post uses these people's own quotes and video statements. It seems that the TH is simply challenging these ideas that are being put forth.
    While some anonymous posters may make snide comments, that comes with the territory. Let's not hash the anonymous thing again.
    Let me make sure I understand this, according to you, name calling is ok as long as you sign your name??

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ummmm Kit?
    Someone did speak out about the 4:28 post. The very next one.
    A lot of TH readers do refute and rebutt comments the don't agree with or they feel are personal attacks.

    I think the over reaching point is that we need to clean house and get new people on these committees. A combined 25 years for the 2 people mentioned is not a personal attack. It is a fact.
    You are welcome to contribute why you think term limits for committee service may or may not be a bad thing.
    Hell, you can say what ever you want.
    Cowardly, anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Having Shireene Hale help fix the CAO debacle she caused is analogus to allowing a convicted rapist to provide grief counseling to the victim.
    Just plain wrong and absurd when you think about it.
    Bizarre enough that it just might happen.

    Should we have a "find the most incomprehensible SMP update" contest?

    ReplyDelete
  22. To Kit @ 2:49

    Legislative debate resulting in the adoption of laws of 2003 chapter 321, section 5; which provided:
    (5) Shorelines of the state shall not be considered critical areas under this chapter except to the extent that specific areas located within shorelines of the state qualify for critical area designation based on the definition of critical areas provided by RCW 36.70A.030(5) and have been designated as such by a local government pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060(2)

    I can provide can pages of RCW, WAC, and true scientific data as to the definition of critical areas. I am incredibly disappointed that you continue to use treaties to justify the manner in which Native Americans harvest fish.

    ReplyDelete
  23. To Kit @ 2:49

    Legislative debate resulting in the adoption of laws of 2003 chapter 321, section 5; which provided:
    (5) Shorelines of the state shall not be considered critical areas under this chapter except to the extent that specific areas located within shorelines of the state qualify for critical area designation based on the definition of critical areas provided by RCW 36.70A.030(5) and have been designated as such by a local government pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060(2)

    I can provide can pages of RCW, WAC, and true scientific data as to the definition of critical areas. I am incredibly disappointed that you continue to use treaties to justify the manner in which Native Americans harvest fish.

    ReplyDelete
  24. And I always thought that "no net loss" referred to a day of fishing by the tribes where they didn't have to cut any gear loose.

    ReplyDelete
  25. From John Evans:

    Years ago, the San Juan County Board of County Commissioners established the Marine Resource Committee to blunt an effort by the Federal NOAA agency to declare the San Juan Islands as a federally-managed marine sanctuary and to use the capacity of our local citizens to create, promote and manage a non-regulatory program to protect preserve the high quality of our local marine environment.

    The Committee has overseen a net recovery program, derelict vessel program, worked with State Fish and Wildlife to encourage restoration of our reef and bottom fish and in general been an advocate for taking care of our valuable marine environment.

    As time has passed, the MRC has become a tool for the Puget Sound Partnership and their grants, for the salmon recovery folks and their grants, for the Friends and their grants, State agencies and their grants and a long list of other interests that see the MRC as a useful tool for their particular agendas.

    The MRC recently declared that they have no longer have a direct connection with our local legislative County Council and are working with other organization far beyond the boundaries of San Juan County.

    The MRC has inserted itself as an advocate into discussions about the Critical Areas Ordinance and the Shoreline Master Program. Under the notion that everything is connected to the marine environment one way or another, they feel free to lobby the local elected officials to push people as far away from the marine environment as can be managed under the MRC’s expansive interpretations of the law.

    Sometimes good people get so caught up in something that they lose sight of what is reasonable and sound public policy. The marine waters are important and so is the ability of people to live around and benefit from the bounty of the marine environment.

    There is a very old fashioned notion called conservation, which is the sustainable and beneficial use of natural resources. Maybe the original legislation that created the MRC should have been more forward thinking and created the Marine Resource Conservation Committee so the committee members could be reminded that they are not intended to be yet another advocate for more and ever-tighter regulations of islanders.

    John Evans
    Doe Bay

    ReplyDelete
  26. Kit--Any chance you will ever address the substance of what is said here, instead of calling people cowards?


    We know that these people are your friends. That's part of the problem. It seems to some of us that you as a group spend lots of time together on the taxpayer's (or tribal lobbying) dollar being "friends." So one post calls Slocomb a "clown." That's the trigger for you to interrupt your travels and have a hissy fit? Really? The FACT is that Slocomb has been on the MRC forever. The fact is that the MRC could use some new blood. That's what advisory bodies are supposed to do; get fresh members every so often so that the room does become an echo chamber.

    Durland's property was criticized by pone post for being messy. Then it was defended as being legal and what a boat yard is. And it was noted that he is being persecuted by CDP to try and get rid of it. So that's not an insult to your "friend." That's not only supporting him, it's letting people know that CDP is run amuck about this too. Information.

    As for treaty rights, I don't see where anyone has shown a failure to understand the Boldt decision or anything else about the treaties. I see someone complaining about the netting of the rivers so that returning salmon are decimated, with no complaint whatsoever from the host of regulators who keep telling us that we out here in the islands are killing salmon. Where does he have the treaty rights wrong? Boldt allows less than 2% of the population to take 50% of the fish. No problem, right?

    How about a response to 9:03 am: what tangible good has the Lead Entity accomplished with the money that it's spent over a decade or so? Your "friend" has been paid with taxpayer money for years; let's evaluate the cost/benefit of the program.

    What do you think about funding these folks to spend half their time seeking more grants?

    Not sure whether Shireene is also your friend, but surely you cannot defend the CAO--she says she's not sure what it means, and she wrote it. The rest of us humans can't understand it, either. And the Friends really don't like it.

    I don't see TH as "an opportunity to anonymously attack and attempt to destroy their neighbors (and your friends);" nor do I see why you think that pitching a fit and telling people to GFY is at all helpful.

    Have a problem with the facts in the main post? Refute them. The entire west coast is NOAA-designated as critical area. So we are going to stop building homes near the shoreline all up and down? Right. That's a "sensible" approach to implementation of the law.


    Have a problem with individual posters? Chill out. These are the islands. We're all crazy. None of us are leaving because you say to, though. Move back to where we came from? Really? Where were you born? Sheesh.

    Finally, if you are having a throwdown with TH, please post the date and time. I haven't seen a good throwdown since middle school.



    ReplyDelete
  27. should be does NOT become an echo chamber.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Why is Kit afraid of committee reform?

    This reminds me of a service club situation many of us have encountered. Old Barney has served for decades as Treasurer and Secretary. It's what he does. It's who he is. Keeps getting reappointed. Otherwise what would he do? Plus he'd get a bit cross if he didn't get reappointed. Let's not rock the boat. He's a good ole boy.

    He was a founder of the club. But time marches on. Hard to get new folks to join up. Some fresh blood seem a bit uncomfortable over the way Barney and his old buddies run the show. No one really knows how to gently help him understand that his draft minutes are getting really hard to understand. And that its getting hard to try and get a word in edgewise. Barney loves to tell long stories about the old days. Barney and his buddies are having a tough time trying to sort out the recent election, they are kind of grumpy these days.

    Dear Friends: Anonymous, Secret Committees and Others: The MRC is basically an arm of government. the MRC is not the Antique Gun Club and Chowder Beating Society. This committee basically creates and advocates PUBLIC POLICY. Many old-timers are all quite accustomed to being in the public eye, Jim, Kit, Laura and others. They have become good friends. They look out for one another. They have much to protect.

    Folks, thank you, thank you for your many years of tireless service to whoever it is that calls your shots.

    But, things are starting to change. Ways you have grown accustomed to over the years just may longer fit the times. Please read the writing on the wall. Let's do this the easy way. And, thanks again.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Kit, I have lived in this state all my life and fish many of its rivers. I am merely stating an opinion. If you are going to use salmon as a lynch pin in moving forward an ideology then let's put it all on the table so people better understand the big picture. Salmon spawn in the rivers and their numbers are directly affected by drift netting floods and predators, the likes of which are also 'now' protected. The plight of the Salmon is hugely affected by these things that I have stated.
    There are some people I have talked to on these islands that believe salmon spawn in eel grass and it is there nesting sanctuary and we must protect it at all cost. This is just not the story and I tire of watching the netting and pounding of the river waters, then hearing of critical areas protections being the Holy Grail of their continued existance. Our shorelines are an important part of that salmon journey, certainly not all of it. I don't like being called a coward but I respect your right to do so. I hope you can respect my right to have an opinion. Mike( baby stes Kit baby steps)

    ReplyDelete
  30. Has anyone started writing an initiative to overturn the ruling on the pictometry? I'm concerned that it will be set aside and allowed to go on.

    I think every possible person who dislikes that idea should write our council members.

    I believe I heard that Jamie was happy because the price went down due to "piggy backing" on Whatcom. Is he truly that clueless?

    Sorry to shift from the salmon conversation. I remember the Boldt decision well and all the upset it caused. And it is fascinating to learn about the river mouth netting.

    Are the tribes truly that clueless?

    And John Evans...thank you for reminding me of that wonderful word.

    Conservation.

    ReplyDelete
  31. @ 8:28 PM

    There's been buzz over the weekend on the aerial photo issue and some possible options emerging. Hopefully TH will be able to pull together an update on that quickly moving item. It is helpful to voice concern to your council person or to the administrator, but remember we're moving from one council to a new one and there is no council session this week. The flights may be inevitable however it takes a few months for the data products to be processed and in that time frame ... much can be done ... stay tuned.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Granted it was not a huge voting decision by the numbers, but a win is a win and a loss is a loss.

    Kit Rawson LOST.

    On occasion Kit, you seem to become upset beyond reason.

    There are things the tribes do that are just flat wrong. You want to know who's destroying the eel grass. Yes, it is your guys! They carpet bomb the bottom with crab traps and then in pulling them three times a week drag the bottom like a plow. They are in such a rush they can't stop and pull and drop, oh no, with so many pots they must move at the speed of the rock music blasting over the noise of their motors as they gun from one set to the next.

    Be constructive, Kit, a little education is in order and not for us islanders. Maybe the MRC can lead an enlightened educational approach to the fishery. And just maybe you could wrap around a more truthful vision.

    I believe the TH is usually looking for the truth, not much else.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Nothing says honoring your sacred land like a casino and parking lot in the tidal flats. NOTHING!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Kit it's good to see you have your drinking under control, how are you coming with the blackouts GFY ( good for you)

    ReplyDelete
  35. I thought GFY was short for "Go Dorf Yourself".

    Maybe I am just Dorfed in the head.

    Anyone find some good SMP verses yet??

    ReplyDelete
  36. I learned 2 things from Kit's ravings.

    #1 - Kit has friends. Kit has friends? Really?
    #2 - I learned what GFY means

    So to you and all your friends, Kit, I'd like to say a hearty "GFY."

    Kit is a big brave dude. He has absolutely no skin in the game with respect to San Juan County. His livelihood doesn't depend on this place. His main home isn't here. He doesn't own a business here. His kids aren't in school here. Yet, he calls people who have EVERYTHING at stake "cowards." You're a bully Kit. You're a bully and a coward. You risk nothing and make fun of people who have everything at risk.

    Lastly, I think all TH readers should derive pleasure from the fact that Kit is on vacation in Europe or some other exotic place, and he is spending his time in the evening reading the Trojan Heron and getting so worked up that he sounds like Dehlendorf. That's priceless.

    Signed, At Risk and Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
  37. "vacation at some other exotic place"

    Somehow the motel 6 in federal way doesn't qualify as exotic in my book.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I really didn't want to mention the worst of all Hippocracy
    in the story of the salmon. When you travel up the rivers and find that after the drift netting the shore of the river is scattered with fresh dead fillet butchered solely for the production of row fish eggs the meat ,lay wasted on the shore. Upon inquiry I am told the Japanese market pays much more for the row than the meat, they had not use for the meat. It had to be said. This may only be true in few instances maybe many? I have seen it

    ReplyDelete
  39. If this PiCTOMETRY is allowed to move forward, we have lost a major battle, and leaves serious question as to our new council, and who he works for

    ReplyDelete
  40. Someone needs to contact Kit Rawson and let him know that someone else is posting silly emotional crap here using his name.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I disagree that Kit has "no skin in the game" with respect to San Juan County. Sure, his main home isn't here and he just has a cabin here and he doesn't own a business here or have kids in school here. And yes, he spent most of his career being the "treaty rights" lobbyist for the Tulalip, famed in song and story for . . . oh, yeah, paving over the entire west side of I-5 and building a casino.

    No doubt he has a nice pension now that he has retired. Do you think that he is going to stop there? Just like he can't even go on vacation without seeking to control the "European invaders" (us, even those of us with tribal ancestors), he will be back and setting up some cushy consulting business to contract with the County or landowners on how to protect the "salmon." He will be speaking for the fish, also. Just like all the non-peer-reviewed "experts," he will be back, looking for a job supported by OUR money, either in the form of grants or the County-imposed requirement for numerous expensive consultants.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Kit - with friends like Slocumb and Boye...you aren't really supporting any credibility for yourself or your cause(s).

    Scott Boye's own words: "...I’ll point to Laura Jo Severson as my proof. Ron Zee, Jim Slocumb and me took a short grandmotherly type, new to the island, that couldn’t string together a paragraph and got her to within 99 votes of Rich Peterson simply by doorbelling. Think what an articulate woman from Orcas could do..."

    ReplyDelete
  43. Scott Boye said..."Ron Zee and ME...."

    Better take a grammar class Scotty

    ReplyDelete
  44. We need to form an action committee
    create a community forum outright with no sanction of the county. No direction from the prosecuting attorney, the county manager or the county council.
    Agenda item
    1. Act responsibly to form the Appeals board that hears and decides appeals to CD&P decisions. The price is FREE the purpose is FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT OVERREACH. The county manager and the PA have decided we don’t need what our adopted codes demand for us. With the experience and knowledge that exists in this county we have what we need.
    When I hear how easy it is for SJC PA and CD&P to Proclaim every action taken not in alignment with county code and or Director AUTHORIZATIONS! the director may declare such condition a public nuisance. Well excuse me but it just isn’t that simple. A Nuisance is a nuisance, and not simply because a director has decided it to be so. We need a professional (non govenment)citizen committee to hear any appeals to director decisions in protection of the civil rights of all affected parties. and FREE OF ANY CHARGE!

    ReplyDelete