On March 5, this Council will approve yet another CAO. Like all the other CAO messes, this latest snafu will buffer wetlands and other critical areas instead of buffering/mitigating the development effects that purportedly threaten critical areas. Instead of basing mitigation on the scale of proposed development effects, CAO restrictions will be based on a subjective ranking of your undeveloped areas.
It's backwards. It always has been backwards, and as long as critical areas themselves, rather than development effects, are the stuff of buffers and restrictions, there will never be nexus and proportionality. In the last CAO, the County took great pride in claiming that they had derived "site-specific buffers." The fatal defect, however, was that they did not derive "development-specific buffers." All the factors necessary to derive a County-specified buffer are present on any piece of property whether one builds a garden shed, a lead smelter, the Empire State Building ... or nothing at all. Buffer imposition is triggered by development, but not related to its effects in any way.
Nothing has changed. In the March 5 CAO, once again buffers are triggered by development, but not related to development impacts.
And this strange fact leads Councilman Hughes on the same search as that of his predecessor, Councilman Fralick ... looking for any weasely way to find some justifiable paradox that will allow Eastsound (and other urban growth areas, but mainly Eastsound) to have smaller buffers. Hughes wants the critical areas of more developed areas to be buffered less than rural areas ... and he lives quite comfortably with this desire even though it would undermine the "buffer protection" logic of someone more perspicacious.
There was a time when an average private citizen could get in trouble with the law, or receive widespread "community" condemnation, only for doing really unspeakable things. Those were the days.
Here in the San Juans, we citizens can get in frightening confrontations with the police for going on Christmas hayrides ... or for going 28 mph in a 25 mph zone.
Here in the San Juans, we have proposed laws that may make it illegal for anyone to cut grass or trim bushes near anything critical ... and nearly everything will be critical.
And despite all that ... here in the San Juans, we can buy and sell drugs with impunity ... reportedly right on Jackson Beach.
We worry about this place and fear that our ecosystem is endangered ... but it also seems to me as if all our efforts to protect the San Juans ... have already ruined it.
This county needs to take a real hard look at itself in 2014.
In this series, we've talked about the overall environmental-ish illusion ... the illusion of perpetually bad environmental news, the illusion of the purity of tribal motivations, and the illusion of the Friends as a benevolent public-interest organization. Now, we want to talk about the illusion of freedom and individuality.
Are you a snowflake or a jigsaw puzzle piece? It's a strange question, but there is a point. Both snowflakes and jigsaw puzzle pieces are unique. But the individuality of a snowflake is derived from its unplanned development whereas the individuality of a jigsaw puzzle piece is imposed upon it by a larger order.
In actuality, this is a very fundamental question about your views of liberty. Should we allow ourselves to be transformed by our leaders ... shaped into more ordered, rational beings for the benefit of society ... and let our institutional bureaucracies create an authoritarian system that we fit into? Believing that people should "fit" into a free society designed by higher-ups leads to a terrible logic -- that we The People do not realize what true freedom is, and we have to be coerced into doing what is good for us.
Read the article below from the Plumas County News in California. It's a familiar story. Everywhere, municipal planners are coercing us into being jigsaw puzzle pieces for some bigger plan. I find one quotation particularly striking,
Senior Planner Becky Herrin, who represented the planning department at the meeting, thanked everyone for attending, but added that she wished they had been “here for the last seven years.”
In other words, the default position of the Plumas County Planning Department is that, unless the public is watching like a hawk, planners will work to impose a restrictive outside order on the community ... in the name of the community.
_____________________________________________________________
Fearing that Plumas County’s new general plan could lead to a loss of private property rights, a group of concerned citizens wants to trash the document and begin again.
With the Plumas County supervisors just weeks away from approving the updated general plan, the Indian Valley Citizens for Private Property Rights appeared before the Planning Commission on Jan. 17 and laid out their arguments.
About 60 people packed the small conference room at the planning department with most standing, and some spilling into the hallway.
Their spokeswoman, Carol Viscarra, gave a PowerPoint presentation outlining the group’s concerns and highlighting why the new general plan is Agenda 21 in disguise.
Agenda 21 is a 300-page document adopted in 1992 at United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The document is designed to be a blueprint of how jurisdictions worldwide should move toward sustainable economic growth that simultaneously protects and renews environmental resources.
Explaining that she was not a political activist, but rather an emergency room nurse and third-generation rancher, Viscarra was nervous. But “I believe it’s my civic duty” to come forward, she said.
After several months of page-by-page review, she said it’s her conclusion that the general plan “seems to mirror almost verbatim Agenda 21.”
There has been a growing theory that Agenda 21 is a conspiracy to take away individual property rights and move people off the land to urban centers.
During her presentation, Viscarra presented a map that showed vast expanses of California as off-limits to the public, wide swaths that were treated as buffer zones to be heavily regulated, with only zones around San Francisco, Los Angeles and Fresno that remained unrestricted. “Eighty-six percent of the land will be set aside as wildlife corridors,” Viscarra said.
Because 71 percent of Plumas County’s land mass is already in the public domain, Viscarra said Plumas County is an ideal locale for Agenda 21 to take root. “Be informed. Be courageous. Read about Agenda 21 and study it for yourselves,” Viscarra told those gathered. “The stealth of this organization is upon us in Plumas County.”
She said that the local planning commission members and supervisors “emphatically deny” any relationship with Agenda 21, and she believes them. She attributes the inclusion of Agenda 21 language in the general plan to the consultants that help jurisdictions write planning documents and organizations that provide grants.
She said the words “Agenda 21” never appear in such documents, but words such as “sustainability,” “open space,” “mixed-use housing” and “sustainable development,” which she describes as the “most egregious,” are all indicators of its influence.
“They will never, ever call it Agenda 21,” she said.
Viscarra said that the process began in Plumas County back in 2002 as local leaders embarked upon Vision 2020, with the aid of outside grants. There were meetings and scoping sessions and language terms such as sustained growth and development became more common.
She said that in the county’s general plan update, the words “open space” are used 121 times, “sustainable” 77 times and “the county shall” is used 430 times. She said that the general plan also has “a lot of references to climate change” another popular theme in Agenda 21.
Viscarra said that timber regulations, which restrict forestry practices in the county, are a good example of how Agenda 21 is already being implemented without people being aware.
Addressing the ranchers in the room, she said, “If you’re not worried, it’s because you’re not paying attention.”
She added, “I looked at the general plan through the prism of a rancher, but this should be a concern to all businesses.”
Applause greeted the conclusion of her presentation.
B.J. Pearson, a former county supervisor and developer in the eastern portion of the county, said, “This is one of the best presentations I have ever seen,” and suggested that she should make the presentation in each district.
Sheriff Greg Hagwood agreed and described the presentation as “one of the most succinct and accurate” that he had seen.
“I thought I would spend the bulk of my time protecting people against burglars,” Hagwood said. Instead, he said he found himself protecting people “from their own government. I encourage the Board of Supervisors to put strong language in the general plan regarding private property rights.”
Many in the audience echoed Viscarra’s concerns about private property rights and the new general plan.
“My understanding is that this plan doesn’t need to be approved until 2015,” Sheila Groethe said. “I ask you to trash this and write a new general plan appropriate to Plumas County.”
As some of the comments began to degenerate and one man said implementing Agenda 21 to was tantamount to treason, County Counsel Craig Settlemire, who had attended the meeting, stepped in.
“Everyone here is working to uphold our oaths and the Constitution,” he said.
Senior Planner Becky Herrin, who represented the planning department at the meeting, thanked everyone for attending, but added that she wished they had been “here for the last seven years.”
The planning department had held multiple meetings throughout the process including meetings in each community. She said that when the meeting was held in Indian Valley no members of the public attended.
Her department is now in the process of writing responses to all of the comments that have been submitted for the environmental document associated with the general plan. She said many accuse the general plan of going too far, while others believe that it isn’t restrictive enough. When the document is complete, a hearing will be scheduled before the Board of Supervisors.
How this latest protest impacts the process is unclear. The deadline for filing comments has passed, but during the Jan. 17 meeting, Planning Commission Chairwoman Betsy Schramel invited those present to put their concerns in writing.
Let's play a shortened version of 20 questions ... let's try 6 questions:
Who is head of the San Juan Islands Conservation District?
Who is on the steering committee of the Stewardship Network?
Who is the founder and head of the Madrona Institute, which acts as the fiscal agent for the Stewardship Network, receiving a modest 5% to 10% cut on all grants?
Who endorsed Pratt, Stephens, and Byers for Council?
Who has been trying to take County programs and grants away from the County (e.g., Salmon Lead Entity Coordinator)?
Who has been discussing #5 above with Jamie Stephens in relative secrecy?
The answer to all of the above is Ron Zee, who is part-creator, part-manipulator of a giant hairball bureaucracy that is a wolf (PSP) in Conservation District clothing. At the end of this post is an effort to depict this hairball with a graph, but honestly, it's an impossible task. Complexity is their disguise. It's a Gordian Knot of bureaucratic self-interest and conflicts of interest. Nevertheless, I hope readers begin to get an idea who the real power is behind this bureaucracy ... and it's not our elected officials.
The Stewardship Network is comprised of 24 organizations, including 5 separate County entities. The Steering Committee for the Stewardship Network is comprised of 4 people: Zee, Linda Lyshall (who works for Zee at the Conservation District), Stephanie Buffum of the Friends, and Lincoln Bormann of the Land Bank. This Steering Committee recently appointed Julia Vouri to be the coordinator of the Stewardship Network/ECONet "under the umbrella of the Conservation District." The Conservation District Board had no say in the matter. Julia Vouri is the wife of Mike Vouri, who happens to be on the Advisory Board of the Madrona Institute. The Madrona Institute was founded and is headed by Zee. He has put together a 4-person Madrona Institute Board (himself, Land Bank Commissioner Jim Skoog, League of Women Voters member Sarah Crosby, and Elaine Kendall of the Ag Guild ... Zee's wife). In addition, Zee has assembled an 18-member Madrona Institute Advisory Committee that includes Linda Lyshall (again), Lincoln Bormann (again), the previously mentioned Mike Vouri, Nick Teague (National Monument/BLM Manager), and Katie Loring, wife of Friends' attorney Kyle Loring who Zee appointed as Associate Board member of the Conservation District.
Given the weight of all these heavily-networked advisors and board members, anyone who thinks the measly Conservation District Board has any power is at best an optimist and at worst a damn fool. The Conservation District Board consists of 5 members, two of whom are appointed by the State. There are just three elected members to the Conservation District Board in an otherwise sprawling complex of self-appointed greased-palm special interests.
And that's not even including the links between the Conservation District and the AAOG/LIO, whose links to the Conservation District are so cozy that the Conservation District has an office reserved for them in their new building. Who's on the AAOG/LIO, aside from the Conservation District itself? Let's see ... the Implementation Committee of the AAOG/LIO consists of a further 12 organizations, including the Marine Resources Committee (again), the Salmon Lead Entity Coordinator (again), the Stewardship Network (again), three County departments (Public Works, CD&P, Health), the Water Resources Committee, the Town, and 3 tribes.
In this impossible-to-follow Gordian Knot, self-appointed Zee-cronies are represented multiple times while the public is shut out. Let's look at the Salmon Lead Entity (SLE), for example. The Salmon Lead Entity Coordinator is Barbara Rosenkotter, who was the Treasurer for Byers campaign (endorsed by then-Democratic-Party-head Zee). Although Rosenkotter ostensibly works for the County, she represents the Stewardship Network, the MRC, and the AAOG/LIO Implementation Committee ... and she has been working stealthily with Zee, the Northwest Straits Commission/Foundation, and the tribes to move her position and State funding to the Conservation District.
There you have it ... 24 organizations in the Stewardship Network, 18 advisors to the Madrona Institute, 4 board members of the Madrona Institute, 13 members to the AAOG/LIO Implementation Committee, 2 State appointees to the Conservation District ... and just 3 elected members of the Conservation District Board. No independently elected official to the Conservation District or even to our County Council has a clue how they're being played by this bureaucracy of mass destruction. No matter how improved the Conservation District electoral system might become as a result of anticipated reforms and lawsuits, the fix is already in ... the elected positions don't even matter anymore ... the Conservation District is machine headquarters where the business of the PSP and Friends is done. The Conservation District is hopelessly broken as a representative body.
And this cabal will pass judgment on whether we, as a County, are good Puget Sound Partners. That's important because whether we are good Puget Sound Partners will matter when our County tries to obtain funding from the State. There is statutory language to that effect. Given the hearings this past week about Conservation District funding, the County Council may be under the misapprehension that they are funding the Conservation District, but in reality, it's the reverse. The County is being set up to be squeezed by the Conservation District, the PSP, and the Friends over State money. If we don't follow their whims, our State funding will be threatened.
And despite the high-minded labels (e.g., Salmon Lead Entity) and the strident, tearful pleas of bureaucratic insiders crying about the environment, absolutely none of the bureaucratic whims have anything to do with improving ecological health. The taxes and grants devoted to bureaucratic eco-efforts aren't funding on-the-ground "save the salmon" or "save the planet" initiatives ... they're funding "save the bureaucracy" initiatives.
Support the Conservation District and save a self-interested bureaucrat ... and maybe even earn a modest 5% to 10% cut for Zee at the same time. Now that's environmental stewardship San Juan style.
Scandals here are de rigeur, and it remains to be seen whether the new Council and Manager can do anything to stop them.
Planning CAO/SMP Debacle --Virtually this entire blog has been devoted to the CAO/SMP mess. Shireene Hale has been at the center of the ongoing CAO nightmare the entire time. No matter what the GMHB ruling, the Trojan Heron doesn't see much improvement happening to the CAO process unless Hale's involvement is summarily halted. Hale has demonstrated repeatedly that her primary interest, as a planner, is to stop everything. She has displayed outright contempt for public participation too. Colin Maycock is nominally in charge of the SMP, and while he's no Shireene Hale, he has been referred to by Stephanie Buffum as being "on our Team." That does not bode well.
Public Works and Stormwater -- Speaking of Shireene Hale, her husband, Ed, is in charge of the County Stormwater Program. The County Stormwater Program has been an open sore for years. We could talk about the (non) applicability of the stormwater manual to our rural circumstances, or the murky logic behind the justification for our stormwater utility and fees, but the ire of many citizens is most easily aroused when discussion turns to the Eastsound Stormwater Facility (i.e., the Eastsound mosquito hatchery) or other Public Works stormwater projects ... all typically overbuilt, poorly designed, ugly, grant-funded, and largely useless. Ed Hale appears to have been the mastermind of all of it.
Public Works Road Projects -- Nearly every new road construction project undertaken by the County in the last few years has been a treatise on mismanagement. For instance, the Lopez Fisherman Bay Road improvement project cost millions of dollars, was way over-budget, required the cutting down of beautiful old trees, necessitated hideous wetland mitigation (Lopez's version of the Eastsound mosquito hatchery), nearly doubled the width of the road ... and at the end of all of the "improving," the speed limit was lowered by ten miles per hour by vote of the County Council that authorized the expensive improvements in the first place. On Orcas right now, the Mt. Baker Road improvement project is a daily banquet of blunders ... almost severing a high voltage power line, having a road height two feet higher than planned as a result of using LiDAR instead of an actual survey, and having to undertake "unforeseen" wetland mitigation. When finished, Mt. Baker Road will look more like an airport runway than a country lane. And Mt. Baker Road is just a warm up for the Spring Point Bridge project on the west end of Orcas. Responsibility for this maddening empire-building seems to rest squarely on the shoulders of Rachel Dietzman, County Engineer. In the eyes of many, Dietzman is arrogant, incompetent, adversarial, and hell-bent on suburbanizing and highway-izing every charming country road in the county. She also has a penchant for cutting residents off from utility access. Dietzman, whose husband is also on the infamous Marine Resources Committee (MRC), is another one that has to go.
Conservation District Power Play -- The goal of the Machine during the last election was to take over the County Council while Ron Zee consolidated power at the Conservation District, which is a separate district of State government. The elections didn't turn out as the Machine had planned, but Boss Zee has moved forward with transforming the Conservation District into the pubicly-funded Kaaba of the Friendly Machine, with all the grant corruption that goes along with it. Zee's idea is to take grants away from the County and funnel them through the Conservation District instead. Zee is moving forward with transferring responsibilities for the Salmon Lead Entity, the LIO/AAOG, the Marine Resources Committee, and parts of the Agricultural Resources Committee. Already, the Conservation District has moved into new larger digs, hired Linda Lyshall, designated an office for Barbara Rosenkotter, raised the specter of appointing Kyle Loring as an associate (unelected) Board member, and made big plans for itself ... unilaterally ... without informing the County that it's taking money, programs, and people away from them.
And there are other scandals, such as staff who lie to Council ... unmitigated conflicts of interest ... and threats of retaliation to employees who attempt to make things better.
We'll be elaborating on each of these areas in the coming days.
Yesterday, the Council selected Michael Thomas as the new County Manager. Thomas is from King County and has a planning background. Mr. Thomas, you have your work cut out for you because our Planning Department functions like a rogue government within a government, with a functional head who openly despises public participation and dissent.
In the email below (from a year ago), Hale discusses her reaction to a CAO public meeting that was, from our perspective, one of the greatest meetings from a public participation standpoint. It was one of the worst from the standpoint of the reaction of public officials.
Once again, Shireene Hale thinks dissent is violence. Someone who regularly cannot tell the difference between dissent and violence may not be stable enough to deal with the public, and perhaps we should be concerned about her reactionary behavior or the irrational steps she might take.
Who is the threat here? It makes me wonder whether Hale will start coming to meetings armed and dangerous. In more ways than one, we need protection from Hale.
From: Shireene Hale [mailto:shireeneh@sanjuanco.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 11:54 AM To: Colin Maycock; Jon Cain; Lovel Pratt; Patty Miller; Pete Rose; Randall Gaylord; Rene Beliveau; Richard Fralick; Shireene Hale Subject: Agenda for Monday CAO Implementation Team meeting?
Good morning,
What do you all have for agenda items for the Monday CAO/SMPImplementation team meeting? Colin will not be attending as he will bein Costa Rica.
At this point I have two items:
* Conduct of public meetings on CAO and SMP.
* Alternatives for getting the wetland and fish and wildliferegulations through the approval process.
Conduct of Public Meetings
On the conduct of public meetings, I would like to discuss options forensuring that our citizens, staff, consultants, Council and PlanningCommissioners do not feel threatened or intimidated, and to ensure thatcomments are focused on the issues, and not on blaming or attackingindividuals. Problem meetings in the past few months include the last three Planning Commission meetings (particularly the March 6 meeting),the San Juan town hall meetings, and the Orcas SMP meeting.
For those that have not heard, we are aware of two separate instances ofpeople discussing the use of guns. One was a warning from someone thatworks at the Orcas fire station, the other was a conversation overheadon the ferry. Chances are nothing will happen, but given the way JohnEvans and others are stirring up fear, hatred and hostility, and given some of the testimony we heard on March 6, I don't think the possibilityof violence should be dismissed.
In addition, prior to the March 16 Planning Commission meeting, GordyPeterson suggested to Janice that she should consider calling in sickrather than attend the meeting, because "it was going to be ugly". Thismay constitute intimidation of a public servant under RCW 9A.76.180 and9A.04.110. Given everything that is going on, it was intimidating tothose of us charged with running the meeting.
Alternatives to help with the public meetings include:
* A clear statement from our leaders (Patty and/or the fullCouncil ?) assuring people that we will get through this and that theircomments are being considered. Other topics that could be touched oninclude reassuring people that if their house burns down, they will beable to replace it; that we are doing are best to keep costs down; thatwe are trying to find the least intrusive approach that will pass musterwith the Growth Board; that what we are trying to develop is a moderateapproach that is more fair and tied to the current science than theEcology recommended regulations; that we are all friends and neighbors,and though we may disagree it is important to be civil and respectful ofone another so that all points of view can be heard, and so that peopledon't feel intimidated; that we will try to find the resources to refine the wetland map so that is does not show man made ponds that are notwetlands; and encourage people to read the proposals for themselves,rather than believing what others are telling them.
* Do what we can to get through the rest of the process in asefficient a manner as possible, to remove the anxiety associated withuncertainty.
* Consider holding a joint PC/ CC hearing on the fish andwildlife amendments, to provide the staff and Planning Commission, andparticularly the Planning Commission chair, with some additionalsupport, and to help move the amendments along through the process.
* Hold all meetings in the Council chambers so that they can belive streamed. If F&W is a joint hearing with the Council, perhapstestimony could be taken from the Orcas and Lopez libraries (we don'thave the capacity to do it without assistance and another staff person).
* Consider having a deputy present for the hearings/ meetings.We have been trying to avoid this - but it may be time to give itserious consideration.
* Consider developing clear expectations of conduct, enforced bythe chair, and let everyone know what they are and what will happen ifthey are not followed. I suggest that clapping, jeering, cheering, andstatements that are focused on individuals rather than issues not betolerated. Options include asking individuals to leave, and if thePlanning Commission/ Council are in deliberations (testimony is notbeing accepted), if necessary the room can be cleared so that deliberations can continue without the disruptions.
Adoption Process for Wetlands and Fish and Wildlife Amendments
Regarding the approach for getting through the remainder of the process,following is a schedule I sent to Patty yesterday.
Wetland Amendments
April 23 - Signed PC draft of wetland amendments and staff reportsubmitted to Council.
May 1 - First touch to review PC recommended draft, findings andrecommendations (including the recommendation for a conference callbetween the Council, Dr. Adamus and Dr. Mayer, to discuss whether we areproperly applying Mayer et al. 2007, and to consider using a paper byXuyang Zhang et al. (2010) as a guide to buffer width, rather than Mayer et al.)
May 7 - field trip (may be just wetlands - if we can get the F&W draftout prior to then, could be both wetlands and F&W).
May 9 - publish hearing notice
May 21 or 22 - CC hearing on wetlands (half day?)
??? - deliberations (probably need a full day)
F&W Amendments
Prior to June 20 - release hearing draft and publish notice.
July 9 or 10 - Joint PC/CC hearing, with PC deliberations in July,followed by CC deliberations. If necessary CC can hold another hearingon another draft prior to consistency review. (Note: I am out of town onvacation June 18 through July 4).
Note: Having a joint hearing does a couple of things. This is likely tobe a difficult hearing and it provides the Planning Commission and CD&Pstaff some support that they don't normally have. It also helps us getthrough the steps in a more efficient manner.
Please let me know if you have additional items for discussion.
Most of us probably remember Jon Shannon, the former head of Public Works. During his tenure, the solid waste situation in these islands grew progressively more bizarre, as well as expensive. It seemed like every solid waste solution ever proposed by Shannon involved making the program more affordable by making it bigger and more expensive. He led us through a costly planning process to relocate the San Juan Island transfer station, an effort that eventually failed when it ran headlong into a buzzsaw of public opposition. He borrowed heavily and regularly to keep the solid waste system afloat. His presentations to the Council often contained basic mathematical errors that no elected official ever caught. He needlessly caused compliance issues and then informed on himself, cutting the roof off the San Juan Island transfer station and subsequently notifying Ecology that we didn't meet stormwater requirements because of it.
Until his final days, he received (however begrudgingly) support from the Council. Even after Shannon had left, the Council still followed his agenda for a while by putting forward a solid waste tax and spending plan patterned after Shannon's philosophy that "more is better." It wasn't until the grandiose solid waste tax plan got shellacked at the polls in 2011 that the Council finally got the message.
Now we seem to be afflicted by another bureaucrat who believes that "more is better." She receives, however begrudgingly, steady support from the Council. She leads a byzantine County program that is as bizarre as it is expensive. In the clip below, you'll see her say that we have to keep her around because, as long as she's here, she can explain the CAOs to everyone else, even though in the last post we saw her admit that she doesn't fully comprehend them. Maybe we should dub the CAOs the "Shireene Area Ordinances," since having been made in Shireene Hale's image, they are both unintelligible and presumptuous.
In the clip, you will hear Hale say, for the umpteenth time, that the CAOs are complicated because we have adopted a site-specific approach. That is a complete red herring. For the umpteenth time, we will say in reply that we do not have site-specific CAOs. We have CAOs that are pointless because they are based on meaningless cherry-picked site variables, leading to a result that cannot be understood even by those who crafted them.
The election may be over, but we're still trapped in the train wreck that is the CAOs. In honor of the election, let's play some CAO greatest hits. The clip below is from April 9, 2013. Shireene Hale (who championed the CAOs) confesses that she doesn't understand them.
It seems like the standard excuse put forward by Hale and others is that the CAOs are complicated because they are site specific. Not true, even though Hale uses this very excuse in the video. They are not site specific. They are just pointlessly bureaucratic and off the mark.
And Hale's view appears to be in contradiction to that of candidate (at the time) and Councilman Jamie Stephens from just 4 days earlier as he appeared in a campaign event. To us, looks like McClerren's take on the CAOs was much closer to the truth than that of Stephens.
The only election result that seems safe to call at this moment is the one between incumbent Jamie Stephens and Brian McClerren in the Lopez race. Looks like Stephens has won that contest.
As for the other races, Jarman leads Pratt; and Hughes leads Byers, but it's too close to make a final call. While you wait for the next count of ballots at 5pm on Wednesday, have a look at a video of the Council discussion regarding aerial photos that took place on Tuesday.
If you listen to the video, you will hear that the resolution of the proposed photos is no better than that of Google Earth? Then why doesn't the County just pay $400 for a Google Earth Pro license?
Also, other Counties aren't making the aerial photos public, even though the photos are paid for with taxpayer money? Is that revelation supposed to be a comfort ... that our County government will have aerial photos that will be kept secret from the taxpayers who paid for it? The photos are public records. How can they be kept from the public?
The more the Council talks about the aerial photos, the stranger it seems. The County is getting some of the money for the photos from Roche Harbor Resort and a realtor on Lopez ... a realtor on Lopez? What?!?
In Pratt's papers, we find a note stating that the CAOs are "site specific" and therefore allow for variable buffers. Over and over again, we have heard that our CAOs are complex because they are "site specific."
Let's explain the County's site-specific approach.
Suppose we had a buffer table in the CAOs that "protected" critical areas on your property based upon your eye color. The table might show that blue-eyed people get buffers of 50 feet, brown-eyed people have to make do with 100-foot buffers, and if you have green eyes, you are eligible for the Green Option and don't have to follow the same rules as everyone else.
Now suppose you constructed a separate table for another land-use restriction, this time based on your shoe size. We could formulate a system where the interplay between your eye color and your shoe size would determine your final land use controls. Besides eye color and shoe size, other specific factors might be brought into play, such as height or weight.
Now, that sort of CAO would be entirely specific to you, but it would be irrelevant for the purpose of "protecting" the critical area.
Similarly, our CAOs are based on site-specific factors that have no relevance to any problem and no relevance to protections of critical areas. Without a site-specific assessment of the source of a problem on a parcel, a site-specific remedy is meaningless.
In one of the recent pleadings regarding the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) lawsuit, there is a declaration from a paralegal who has gone to the effort of quantifying the level of non-responsiveness of our public servants.
Before we get to the tally, for the sake of background, remember that the OPMA states the following:
The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
"Governing body" is "the multimember board, commission, committee, council, or other policy or rule-making body of a public agency, or any committee thereof when the committee acts on behalf of the governing body, conducts hearings, or takes testimony or public comment."
"Action" is "the transaction of the official business of a public agency by a governing body including but not limited to receipt of public testimony, deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews, evaluations, and final actions. "Final action" means a collective positive or negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a governing body when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance."
"Meeting" means "meetings at which action is taken."
Remember, too, that there is no dispute about whether the CAO Committee meetings took place in secret. They did. The dispute concerns the content of the meetings. The position of the participants is that they only discussed scheduling and not more substantive matters, despite documentary evidence (notes and emails) to the contrary.
When questioned about the meetings, this is how the deponents remembered (or did not remember) events.
Lovel Pratt was deposed on January 3, 2013, and she expressed 67 denials of knowledge (63 "I don't recall", 4 "I don't know")
Richard Fralick was deposed on January 3, 2013, and he expressed 22 denials (21 "I don't recall", 1 "I don't know")
Patty Miller was deposed on January 4, 2013, and she expressed 63 denials (51 "I don't recall", 12 "I don't know")
Shireene Hale was deposed on January 17, 2013, and she expressed 100 denials (52 "I don't recall", 31 "I don't know", 17 "I just don't have a specific recollection")
Mirror, mirror on the wall ... who remembers the least of all? Looks like it's Hale, followed by Pratt, Miller, and then Fralick.
Imagine you are a couple living on Orcas. You file a complaint against a commercial property owner who you feel is in violation of the County Code. You sign forms promising your confidentiality.
Let's leave aside the merits of the complaint against the commercial property owner for the moment because that is quite a yarn unto its own. We hope to tell that story from the standpoint of the commercial property developer at some time in the not-too-distant future too.
Back to the couple who complained (and by the way, they were not the only complainants) ... shortly after filing their complaint, the couple themselves come under suspicion for code violations about their home. Armed with a Polaris photo and suspicions of potential violations suggested by the photo, a "third party" notifies CDPD of alleged violations on the couple's property. No one files a formal complaint but an "activity report" is completed by CDPD based on a conversation with the "third party." With this activity report as justification, a CDPD staffer (not a Code Enforcement Officer) begins an investigation of the couple, including a drive-by look-see of the couple's property from a public right-of-way. No buildings can be seen from the public-right-of-way, but nevertheless, the "case" is turned over to a Code Enforcement Officer.
Four days before Christmas in 2011, the couple is traveling for the holidays. Unbeknownst to them, they receive a notice at their home stating that CDPD suspects that they might have an illegal building on their property. They are given 14 days to respond, and it just so happens that the couple returns from their travels on the 14th day. They find that their front gate has been tagged with a notice of violation and a "Stop Work" order.
After a discussion with the Enforcement Officer, the couple is quickly shifted to dealing with Deputy Prosecutor Amy Vera. Also, the alleged code violation shape-shifts a bit too ... from having to do with an illegal building to having to do with something about a trailer as well.
While this is happening, the commercial property developer submits a public records request to the County for all public records related to his situation, including the names of complainants. The County notifies the couple that their names will be revealed to fulfill the public records request. The couple objects via their attorney, stating that they were assured of anonymity and have signed confidentiality agreements to that effect, but the County releases their names anyway.
Needless to say, by this point the couple is feeling rather picked on by the County and by CDPD especially. They ask their local Councilman for help, and complain about two CDPD staff in particular. The Councilman relays the couple's concerns to Administrator Pete Rose.
Shortly after this, and despite having an attorney willing to accept service of court papers, the couple is served with notice at their home that the County intends to sue them for code violations. The couple's lawyer responds to the lawsuit notice and offers to CDPD that they come to the property to view the building/trailer in question in the hope of pursuing a resolution to the matter. Six months go by ... the County doesn't respond.
While giving the couple the silent treatment, the County (for some reason) decides to pursue a criminal case against the couple. On October 16, 2012, the Sheriff and the CDPD Enforcement Officer appear before Judge Andrews to say that they have probable cause to search the couple's private property for evidence of crimes. They get a warrant to enter the couple's property, and they proceed directly to the property with the intent to search it. When the County arrives at the property, they find a locked gate and no one home. So, the Sheriff calls the wife at her place of business and tells her to come to unlock the gate immediately, otherwise the Sheriff will cut the lock on the gate to gain entry to the property. The couple (together) rush home to find a County vehicle, a Sheriff's vehicle, two deputies, the CDPD Enforcement Officer, and the Deputy Building Inspector all waiting to enter their property. Of particular note to the couple is that the two CDPD employees present were the same employees that the couple had recently complained about to their Councilman.
A month later (November 2012), the couple are issued a summons to appear in District Court as they were being charged with four criminal misdemeanors and threatened with possible fines of $5,000 plus and a year in jail. And not once has the couple received a notice of correction, compliance plan, or even a phone call simply asking how the matter could be resolved more amicably.
And as far as we understand the situation, the entire matter involves an alleged owner-builder agricultural building of approximately 1,000 square feet and an associated trailer ... not visible from the road ... not hurting anyone ... a victimless "crime" if it is a crime at all.
If you want to find out more, or if you want to support this couple, then please attend their hearing on March 20 (Wednesday) at 1:45 pm at the Courthouse in Friday Harbor.
Is this really how we want our County to treat us ... or our neighbors? Do we really want to create laws (like the CAOs) that encourage this sort of thing? Also, think about this case when you read the proposed new enforcement ordinance.
Yes ... today is the big day. We'll know (probably) this evening who will move on to the general election in April.
In assorted news (while we wait for the election results), the Planning Commission and the County Council held a joint session yesterday. It was reminiscent of meetings about solid waste before the citizens of this County finally got so fed up with Public Works that we took solid waste operations away from them. Planning Department staff could not have been more unhelpful yesterday. Nearly every request put to them was met with rebound requests for more staff and more money. As mentioned, we saw this sort of behavior from the old solid waste staff in the days before their downfall, where no request was too small for the County to turn down using "resource constraints" as the excuse -- not even the installation of a suggestion box at the waste facilities was doable.
The Planning Department has now decided to fall into the same role, and apparently, it won't work on anything that it doesn't want to work on. They just hired another full-time planner, and despite "completing" the CAOs, they have no time or resources to work on any Council or Planning Commission request. Funny how that is.
I think it's time we looked at a new organizational model for the Planning Department just like we had to look at a new organization model for solid waste.
In addition to elections and Community Conversations, the County has been having workshops about the new CAOs. Already, there has been one workshop in Friday Harbor, and there will be another on Orcas on February 6.
We've heard some candidates say how much easier the new CAOs are, but that's not how it appears to people who have attended the workshops. In a letter to the Journal, Paul LeBaron has captured in a nutshell how "easy" our new system is.
The CAO will certainly create several high paying jobs throughout the county. The new Pre-Application Evaluation Questionnaire has 24 technical questions and costs $400 to file. The $400 fee will be the least of your worries, since you will probably need to hire a surveyor, geologist, biologist, land use attorney, and wetland expert if applicable. This will become more difficult if you are within the shoreline.
Once this form is completed you can turn it into the county for review. If by chance their experts agree with your experts, you are ready to go back to the planning department to fill out the Land Use Pre-Application Evaluation Worksheet. This is a 6-page questionnaire with 78 technical questions to be filled out by several of your highly paid consultants.
Couldn't be easier! Just do all that, and faster than you can say "Kyle Loring," you'll be on your way to the next phase of your project -- confronting a Hearing Examiner challenge by the Friends. Ahh, the good life.
But really, it's better, just listen to the candidates. The CAOs are logical, and I guess some people aren't frightened by unbridled regulatory discretion.
Recently, a friend of mine made the curious statement that he misses hating the Soviet Union. He doesn't miss the Soviet Union itself, but he misses being able to use the Soviet Union as a cautionary tale.
An old joke about the Soviet Union tells of the travails of a man who wanted a car. As the story goes, the wait-list for a car was 10 years, and after filing all the paperwork ... after satisfying every bureaucratic whim, the final bureaucrat tells the man that he can expect his car 10 years from that day. The car buyer then asks if the car will be delivered in the morning or afternoon, and the bureaucrat retorts, "It's ten years from now. Why does it matter if it's the morning or afternoon?" To which the buyer replies, "Because I have the plumber scheduled for that morning."
Over the holidays, I spoke to a friend of mine who spent the first half of her life in the Soviet Union, and I told her that joke. She laughed, but she let me know that it was no joke at all. She recalled her father having to wait 3 years to get rugs for their flat in Leningrad.
If our County government made rugs, that's the way it would work here.
We're not threatened by missiles or tanks from the Soviet Union these days, but we seem to be under attack internally by the notion that everything about our lives must be planned ... that all our activities have to be pre-approved and coordinated by some central know-it-all bureaucracy ... and that every speck of personal initiative harms something else and we therefore need to regulate it.
There was a time when we believed that individuals could accomplish great things in their own lives and for the community through the application of their own creativity and initiative. They could grow a business, start a farm, expand a shellfish operation, house themselves, and build a life ... all without "charrettes," without "visioning meetings," without people "helping us understand" that we are "connected to a living system of resiliency."
Today, we got our first look at the CAOs that were passed yesterday. They can be found at this link.
The County came out with a press release regarding Council CAO approval. As we review and analyze the final version, we will be providing our own commentary. At this stage, it appears as if many of the last-minute changes made by the Council were cosmetic. Councilwoman Pratt is quoted as saying that the CAOs represent "hard work" and "compromises," but the final CAO text appears to represent neither. It makes us wonder whether Pratt has a grasp of either concept.
Consider, as a brief example, the Reasonable Use Exception in the General Section. Aside from adding some meaningless platitudes up front about respect for private property, the Council left it alone. It's still the same old unreasonable Reasonable Use Exception that we've seen in every unacceptable draft up to this point. Nothing substantive has changed.
One of the local newspapers said the CAOs were "blessed" by the County Council yesterday. We think they have their religious imagery mixed up. The citizens of the County were cursed by it.
In a separate matter that might have implications for CAO implementation and general governance, a lawsuit was filed today to overturn the election results regarding Proposition 1 (Actually, the prayer for relief requests that all three propositions be invalidated. See comments below). Among other things, the suit seeks injunctive relief to stop the scheduled county-wide elections for three new councillors. Readers also may remember that there already is a separate lawsuit in progress regarding the behavior of Fralick, Miller, and Pratt and their secret CAO meetings. The year 2013 is shaping up to get off to a bang in what may be a year of continuous litigation for the County.
Some Trojan Heron readers may be acquainted with the text of a statement by Martin Niemöller that describes the methods of totalitarianism witnessed in his native Germany. It was a simple formula: pick on specific groups one at a time and count on the silence of all the other groups. For Godwin's Law reasons, I try to avoid all references to the Nazis, but the Lunny situation (see previous post) makes me think of a Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) variation of the Niemöller text:
First they came for the rural inhabitants of King County, and I did not speak out because I did not live in King County.
Then they came for the country people of Eastern Washington and the Olympic Penninsula, and I did not speak out because I did not live there.
Then they came for the farmers and fisherman of my County, and I did not speak out because I was not a farmer or fisherman.
Then they came for the homeowners, and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Niemöller's original statement was published in a 1955 book by Milton Mayer, They Thought They Were Free, based on interviews he had conducted in Germany several years earlier
To avoid Reductio ad Hitlerium, I have to clearly state that, no, we are not fighting Nazis, but some of the eco-bureaucratic tactics and reactions by The People can be viewed in a similar light. My Niemöller-style text is but a poor attempt to convey some instances of this for the CAOs. I am sure that Trojan Heron readers could come up with much better versions.
Watch out, you might get what you're after. That's a line from the Talking Heads song Burning Down the House. That's how today's hearing on the CAOs went: a bunch of talking heads burning down the house.
In many ways, today's hearing was typical of the standard public participation events occurring throughout the CAOs. We heard from the tribes (the Tulalip). We heard from the Friends multiple times. During public access time we also heard from staff, such as Barbara Rosenkotter who is a County employee serving as the Salmon Lead Entity Coordinator. In customary zoomorphic and theomorphic style, she claimed that she spoke for the salmon who are not able to speak for themselves. I wonder how many salmon know that? We heard from the Common Sense Alliance (CSA), and we heard from CSA supporters too. And oh yeah, I suppose somewhere in there was a non-affiliated person or two, but I honesty couldn't tell you.
We heard the usual environmental hysteria talk. The San Juans are unprotected. The CAOs are the weakest in the state. We have to be more careful with an island. We have to ... we have to ... we have to ... blah blah blah.
Surprisingly, there were some curious parallels between the testimony of the Friends and CSA. Both organizations feel that the CAOs are deeply flawed. The Friends, for example, say the proposed CAOs are the weakest in the state. They say the CAOs amount to no protection at all. Then in the next breath, with no concern for their self-contradiction, the Friends urge the Council to pass the CAOs. That puts the Friends in the peculiar position of openly supporting the passage of laws which they allege do nothing in terms of environmental protection.
CSA also thinks the CAOs do nothing, except place lots of restrictions on homeowners, trap them with incomprehensible formulas and rules, and potentially restrict nearly every aspect of property use.
However, the Friends apparently like the part about abusing homeowners, so they urged the Council not to kick the can down the road to the next Council. Buoyed by such bold encouragement and despite the Council's repudiation during the recent election, the Council members have convinced themselves they are on a mission from God to pass the CAOs. We heard Lovel Pratt today refute the notion that the elections were a referendum on her performance relative to the CAOs. She claimed that she lost the election because she was outspent and because we voters were confused. We heard other self-puffery and deflection from other Council members too. They flattered themselves with their knowledge and hard work on the CAOs. The bottom line is that this Council is going to pass the CAOs come hell or high water. No more kicking the can down the road.
Kicking the can down the road? The Council fully admits that these CAOs will be appealed to the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB). Instead of kicking the can down the road to the next Council, they're kicking the can upstairs to the GMHB.
In written testimony to the Council today, here is how CSA summed up the Council's position relative to the CAOs:
We have supported this Council’s intent not to “kick the can down the road.” However, if Council adopts a seriously defective CAO just to “get 'er done” and satisfy those who keep saying it is taking too long, YOU WILL BE “KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD” and leaving a toxic mess for our community, by elevating form over substance and failing to properly protect our critical areas, our economy, or our community. Much hard work has been done, and significant progress has been made, but this is not the time for analytical shortcuts or legislative horse-trading. The fundamental defects we have identified are not new – they are not 11th hour delaying tactics. We urge you to keep working to either cure these defects or consider the alternative approach, “A Reasonable Way Forward for the County and the CAO Process” submitted by CSA on September 10, 2012.
But in typical fashion, the County isn't listening.
P.S. Don't miss Nick Power's article in the Island Guardian because we should be ashamed of ourselves.
As we approach the final hearings on the CAO (tomorrow 10:45 am), I feel it is an appropriate time to reacquaint ourselves with our vision statement from our Comprehensive Plan. As was noted in a comment to an earlier post, the preamble says:
WE THE PEOPLE of San Juan County recognize that these rural islands are an extraordinary treasure of natural beauty and abundance, and that independence, privacy and personal freedom are values prized by islanders. Being a diverse people bound together by these shared values, we declare our commitment to work towards this vision of the San Juan Islands in 2020 A.D.
The rest is pretty good too. Read it at this link, and judge for yourself whether we are living up to our common vision.
After you do that, reflect on the miserable quality of the scientific deliberations for the CAOs. Reflect on the baseless, blind ambition to invade islanders' privacy. Reflect on what the CAO restrictions will do to our sustainability, our self-reliance, our independence, and our personal freedom.
One of my favorite Facebook pages goes by the enthusiastic but somewhat improper name of "I Fucking Love Science", which is often abbreviated IFLS. I'll leave you with some of the posters and cartoons from IFLS that have particular resonance with the CAOs.
Okay, this last one is from the Economist, not IFLS. We may not be Greece exactly, but have you seen the County's debt or the growth of its expenditures while we have frittered away time on the CAOs?
The Shakers believed in simplicity and a culture of work, and our County would do well to recall their virtues.
With rare exception, it seems whenever this County is confronted with an option, it chooses the complex over the simple; the grand vision over the here and now; the expensive over the frugal; upshifts over downshifts.
We build empires of coordinating committees, inter-governmental panels, advocacy non-profits, and junior taxation districts. Having chosen to live in a rural community, we then set about making it less rural, wanting improved transportation, bigger roads, signage, more convenient ferry service, complete streets, bike lanes, and a mapped and formally-designated island-wide trail system. And of course, all this stuff needs plans, plans, plans. All this stuff needs grants, grants, grants, including all the administration, reports, and inflated self-puffery that goes along with it. Once we have all that bling, we need to show it off and promote it with brochures and campaigns. Ironically, a lot of this new complexity and development is passed off as conservation, and while all this planning and conserving is going on, the government starts to reach so far into people's lives that virtually nothing escapes its purview. Many who think about starting a business or farm feel they have to do so either illegally or else subject themselves to the indignity and crushing expense of a thousand reviews by limitless bureaucratic know-it-alls ... or maybe not even try at all, just give up before they even give it a go. And the avalanche of government oversight never stops. The visioning never stops. The projections never stop. The plans to link us to bigger and better know-it-alls in a giant know-it-all network never stops.
It has to stop.
Nick Jones has written a Thanksgiving article that was published in the Island Guardian. It is reproduced here in its entirety.
__________________________________________________________
Happy Thanksgiving
This year, as we have for the past
eight or nine years, we provided smoked salmon to the Family Resource Center to
help fill Thanksgiving baskets for island families. This is a wonderful service built on collaboration between our island churches, the Resource Center and many
individuals. In the time we have
participated, the number of baskets requested has climber from 17 (if my
memories are correct) to more than 50.
It is a sobering thought that so many of our friends, neighbors, and
fellow islanders are struggling.
Thanksgiving is a time to celebrate the blessings we enjoy, to share
with those who are struggling, and maybe above all, to celebrate the
productivity and vigor of our land, to contemplate the fruits of our labors.
Lately I have been working on
preparing paperwork to expand our shellfish operation. Our attorney tells me to expect to
spend at least $30,000 in so doing.
We will pay for multiple studies, vast amounts of legal time and
extortionate permit fees to fund the same process on the county side. The permit will take at least 4 months
to process. We will do all this to
prove the sustainability of shellfish growing, which is perhaps the most
environmentally positive form of food production on the planet. The process will not improve the
outcome at all. It will merely eat
up scare time and resources, and keep a small army of consultants and
bureaucrats busy. If the permit is
approved, we will be able to employ at least four additional people, year
round, at family wage jobs.
I have no water to haul for developers
or coal port operators. All I know
is what we experience: We farm
livestock and shellfish and work with local and tribal fishers to bring local
seafood products to market. Over
the past 10 years we have built our business up from nothing to employ 14
people. We currently supply
product as far afield as Hong Kong and the East Coast. Given current and impending
regulatory hurdles, it would be flat-out impossible to build what we have built
with the resources we had available then.
As we work to expand further pitched battles with regulators has become
our weekly, if not daily, reality.
I marvel at a system that actively
fights people who are trying to build productive businesses. I marvel at a government that creates
barriers for those who want to grow food.
And I marvel at our elected officials who accept and apologize for their
insane regulatory structure, who willfully consign so many island families to
stunted and stressful lives.
And
so this Thanksgiving I am deeply grateful for the bounty we enjoy and
steward. I am deeply grateful for
the robust ecosystem, which supports it.
I am deeply grateful to live in such a caring community, and I am deeply
grateful to be able to share some of our good fortune with struggling families. I am deeply grateful to have the
opportunity to provide jobs to our crew and pure food to our customers. I pray
that our policy makers will have the vision and fortitude to reclaim a county,
state and nation that helps people create lasting, meaningful and productive
lives. And I pray that, by consequence of their actions, beginning next year,
each successive year will see more jobs created, more businesses started and
fewer families in need in San Juan County.
