Catching Up (Again) - Ethics and PSSA's

As usual, there has been a lot going on, and my thanks to commenters who keep abreast of information even when I am unable to post. Here are a few recent items of particular note:

• David Dehlendorf and Friends Attorney Kyle Loring raised a stink about the fact that three Common Sense Alliance (CSA) Board members sit on the Planning Commission. Dehlenloring alleged that it was a conflict of interest since CSA is opposing the County's draft of the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) in court. Loring even said that the conflict was so obvious that it was "Ethics 101." If it is Ethics 101, then Dehlendorf and Loring are late to class.
  
  Unlike the Friends, CSA has never received a penny from the County and never voted to give itself grant funding. Unlike the Friends, CSA is a relative newcomer to County advisory committees. In fact, when Mike Carlson of CSA was appointed to the Planning Commission, he replaced Mike Kaill, former President of the Friends Board. Kaill's tenure on the Planning Commission coincided with the Friends opposition (including lawsuits) of the County's guesthouse legislation. Where were Dehlenloring's concerns about ethics then? Or ... when Susan Dehlendorf took a "straw poll" of Planning Commissioners regarding the CAO last year, where were the concerns about ethics?
  
  Ethics 101? It seems more like Ethics-ish 101. When Dehlenloring are interested in ethics for everybody instead of simply using the name of ethics as a tool to advance their own interests, then we're more likely to pay attention. By the way, our Prosecuting Attorney reviewed the issue and twice produced a written opinion saying there is no conflict. The Planning Commission is only an advisory body to the Council, and as such, no conflict exists.

• By now, most people have probably heard that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been armoring the beach at Watmough Bay, one of the most beloved pocket beaches in all the islands ... and certainly one of the most beloved beaches on Lopez Island. There are several incredible ironies about this story, which we will cover in greater detail in an upcoming post. First, the hard armoring isn't even protecting any structures. Second, despite all the meetings with BLM officials over the past few months about local outreach and involvement, apparently no locals knew the hard armoring project was in the works. Third, the BLM produced an Environmental Assessment of the proposed work which led to a "Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI). Think about that for a moment ... the federal government armored a beach in the National Monument and there are no significant impacts, and yet the Friends oppose nearly every dock and armoring project on the grounds that there are environmental impacts. Fourth, one of the contractors involved in the Watmough Bay project, Coastal Geologic Services, is the Friends "go to" consultant whenever the Friends oppose docks and armoring. It's hard to believe the Friends didn't know about the Watmough Bay project ahead of time ... and yet they said nothing, even as they opposed other armoring projects elsewhere and opposed the expansion of the Islander Resort on Fisherman Bay too. There are more ironies, but ... we'll cover them in the upcoming full post.

• Speaking of the Friends, they're at it again. One of the key strategies of the Friends is to take local issues and link them to national and international affairs, so that we become subsumed into a global matrix of restrictions based on the pretense of "local protection." Case in point was Stephanie Buffum signing a treaty to protect the Salish Sea last March. As we've seen, the Friends' megalomania becomes especially virulent when it comes into contact with grant money. Below is an email from ex-CDPD employee Elizabeth Anderson talking to the usual suspects ... Barbara Rosenkotter and Stephanie Buffum ... about (wait for it) a grant to designate our waters a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA). I know ... yet another acronym. It never ends. Some of you may remember Elizabeth Anderson, whose employment with CDPD was justified by (you guessed it) a grant, and who was put in charge of writing a County Solid Waste Management Plan during the collapse of the County's solid waste management system. Her time here could not have been more fruitless and pointless.
  
  Now she is touting another "brilliant program."

__________________________________________________

From: Elizabeth Anderson

To: Barbara Rosenkotter

Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 11:53:00 -0700

Subject: Fwd: Oil Spill Prevention - Addition to today's discussion

Attachment(s): 1

OOPS! I forgot to copy you on this.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Elizabeth Anderson <ebanderson12@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: Oil Spill Prevention - Addition to today's discussion
To: Stephanie Buffum <stephanie@sanjuans.org>

Stephanie - this is a brilliant program with a high degree of probability of success in preventing oil spills. However, it does not fit the NTA where I had notes that you would provide some further milestones. I attach the revised table thus far.  The only red letters are under SD 1B, where I thought you had more to add.  It may be fine as-is.

Do I need to add anything from yesterday's IC discussion?

Thanks, 

Elizabeth

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Stephanie Buffum <stephanie@sanjuans.org> wrote:

The purpose of the Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) for the Salish Sea Feasibility Study is to investigate the possible benefits and costs of enhancing the management regime  of the areas surrounding the shipping lanes surrounding the San Juan Island National Monument, through the creation of an internationally mandated Particularly Sensitive Sea Area for the Salish Sea. This potential designation can only be achieved if the area is particularly sensitive (in ecological and cultural terms) and the existing regulatory regime does not adequately protect it. Whilst such PSSA designations have been recognized in other parts of the United States and the international community, they have not been considered in the context of the highly vulnerable Salish Sea.

Goal: 

To communicate to the Salish Sea populace, including organizations, business, Tribes and First Nations and government, what important ecological and cultural values are present in the Salish Sea, their fragility, and how they will be negatively impacted upon if the risk of vessel traffic in this area is not adequately managed, as it is in other part of the United States, and similarly, within the international community. Simply, we wish to show the gaps in our regulatory protection of the Salish Sea, and an existing tool can be applied to fix this problem, to the benefit of both the ecology and the surrounding communities.

Objectives:

1.     To provide a principle campaign tool for protecting marine waters.

2.     To educate the public about what is at stake if large scale shipping traffic of potentially hazardous cargo, is not adequately regulated.

3.     To show how adequate management has been achieved in comparable areas with similar risks to the Salish Sea.

4.     To empower local groups, including Tribes and First Nations, eco-tourism operators with information for their own campaigns to protect the Salish Sea, and to learn from the experience of other communities facing similar difficulties

5.     To develop “new evidence” to bring to any review process.

6.     To provide an Alternative, which has been successfully adopted elsewhere,  to reduce the risk of an oil spill in the Salish Sea.

Audience and campaign

The audience is the general population of the Salish Sea. The request for designation will require Washington State Tribes and Canadian First Nations, federal, provincial, state and local leaders and public officials to support this designation. Key business leaders and ngo organizations in British Columbia and the US, principally within Washington State, will be essential for cultivating support for these two proposals separately in the US and in Canada. 

Cost: $35,000 for Feasibility Report. Gap: $25,000

$90,000 for full nomination in the US and Canada, conference, materials. Gap: $90,000

State Of The County

With election results due this week, we think it’s time to review the state of the County.

Over the past couple of weeks, the implementation of the new CAOs has been delayed a full year because no one can figure out what they mean. Even Shireene Hale, who wrote the language in the Ordinances and championed them, admitted in front of the Council that she doesn’t know what certain parts of the CAOs are saying. Despite this, certain of our fellow citizens continue to speak in favor of the new CAOs, as if they understand them better than anyone else. They don’t, and neither do the candidates who have alleged that they are simpler and better than the old/current ones.

The CAOs are still under appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) by the Friends of the San Juans (who urged their approval), the Common Sense Alliance (who did not urge their approval) as well as others. The lawsuit regarding the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA) violations also continues, with a decision expected in the upcoming week about a Motion for Summary Judgement heard in Court on Friday. An appeal of the CRC propositions is still alive too, but will not affect the election this week.

We have a new national monument, the meaning of which (like the CAOs) remains hard to decipher. It was billed as a grassroots effort to protect BLM lands here, but to many, the entire affair looked more like an effort to promote eco-tourism by some of the more prominent and connected eco-glorymongers in the islands.

On election matters, the candidates have raised approximately $110k altogether, with about $73k amassed by the partisan candidates (Pratt - $23k, Byers - $30k, and Stephens - $20k). Trust Islanders, a newly formed non-partisan PAC, has raised about $24k to assist the non-affiliated candidates (whether they want it or not). The non-partisan candidates, collectively, have raised only about $37k.

This election has seen quite a few misstatements by certain candidates in addition to the aforementioned claim that the new CAOs are simple. Jamie Stephens, for example, claimed during the League of Women Voters forums that the County did not add debt during 2012. While the County did refinance some of its debt in 2012, it also added $1.7 million in new general debt too. County budgets are at near all-time highs as well, despite shedding staff over the last few years. Structural cost imbalances also persist since staff payroll costs (which form the bulk of general fund expenditures) continue to grow faster (3% per annum) than the levy lift limit (1% per annum).

Despite the imbalances and the need to add debt, somehow Bob Jean has been able to find about $160,000 in 2013 for highly questionable purposes related to dubious Community Conversations and more advanced aerial photography for our County GIS system.

Committees are still out of control, although the Winter Council has made attempts to get their hands around them.

The Planning Department continues to hire staff, and the unspoken relentless planning vision for our County appears to be to create and staff an Urban Planning Department despite being a rural county.

The Stormwater Program remains confused, purposeless, and expensive.

The Network/Machine continues to thrive and speak out, as is evdent from letters to the editor. It continues to exert itself out of public view too. Ron Zee, head of the Stewardship Network, the Madrona Institute, and the Conservation District, has brought Kyle Loring of the Friends into the Conservation District as an advisor. Word has it that he is about to hire Linda Lyshall into the Conservation District too.

The State of the County? Still rotten ... with plenty of work to do regardless who wins the election.

The Friends Owed It To Us

There's a line in the movie Caddyshack where Ted Knight's character says to one of the caddies:

I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them.

Taking a cue from Judge Smails, the Friends of the San Juans today appealed our newly adopted CAOs to the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB). They didn't want to do it, but the Friends feel they owe it to us, despite what Stephanie Buffum said as she stood before the Council just two months ago (November 27, 2012):

It's time to finish the CAO. You've got a roadmap. You've had many wonderful comments that have been provided to you. It's unlikely that the next two groups of decision makers sitting in your seats over the next five months will be able to complete more than the previous three councils before you. It's time to finish the CAO. It's time to stop the financial hemorrhage. It's time to stop the conflict. It's time to complete and create certainty for our community. Certainty is good for our economy and our environment.

How is filing an appeal before the GMHB consistent with any of the words spoken by Buffum? It isn't. If the Friends felt the CAOs were so inadequate as to require a GMHB appeal, why did the Friends stridently urge approval? Besides, weren't the Friends (such as Janet Alderton) advocates for some of the more complex and inscrutable aspects of the CAOs?

Who knows what game the Friends are really playing, but it isn't protection of the environment. They just like to mess with people. Pass the CAOs, so we can appeal. Got a B&B CUP permit? ...  we'll oppose that. Want to grow blueberries on your own property? ... we can manufacture a situation where that's illegal too. We're the Friends. We can do anything. We sit on all the important committees. We're the lifeblood of the Network. And we'll get taxpayer money (grants) to mess with you too. Just try to stop us.

From what we've observed, the Friends seem not to be an environmental organization so much as they seem to be professional bullies, and they want our County government to devote all its energy towards aiding and abetting their harassment mission.

Vanity of vanities, saith the Friends, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a County of all its CAOs which it maketh under the GMA? There is no remembrance of former things. All the committees run into the Network; yet the Network is not full: unto the place from whence the CAO come, thither they return again.

Here's the press release the Friends sent out today.
_____________________________________________________________

The FRIENDS of the San Juans has appealed the Critical Areas Ordinance update that San Juan County adopted in December 2012. 

The FRIENDS press release on the appeal to the Growth Managment Board (Board) states the " filed the appeal in an effort to stem the steady, incremental and cumulative degradation of local waters and wildlife. Eelgrass disappeared from 82 acres of embayments between 1995 and 2004. Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Southern Resident Killer Whale and sea bird populations continue to decline. Shoreline trees and shrubs that deliver insects to salmon, and tidal marshes that provide them homes, have also declined significantly over the years."

“Unfortunately, this is the next step,” stated Kyle Loring, FRIENDS’ Staff Attorney. “We see litigation as a last resort, but when seven years and several different processes result in an ordinance riddled with loopholes, like shoreline buffers as small as 30 feet from spawning beaches when other counties seek 150 feet, we feel compelled to turn to the Growth Management Hearings Board for guidance.”

San Olson, President of FRIENDS’ Board of Directors, stated, “We are picking up where experts like the Washington Department of Ecology, locally-affiliated Tribes, and the County’s Marine Resources Committee left off. Each of them offered recommendations to ensure that the CAO protects critical areas, unfortunately many of their recommendations were rejected. FRIENDS’ board is concerned that if we do not challenge the CAO provisions we believe are inadequate, San Juan County would lower the bar for ourselves and those Puget Sound counties just now starting their second round of CAO updates.” 

That Oughta Fix That Global Warming Thing

When you try to obtain County permission for a little project, you hit the tripwire that inevitably and unwittingly slams you headlong into the Network. The Network that was ostensibly built to combat global warming, to fight against agrochemical pollution, to save salmon, protect whales, house people sustainably and affordably, and stop coal shipments directs its know-it-all suspicions towards hapless you. Of course, if you can pay "donations" to have the Network ignore you, then your mega-dock or super-house might not attract a whiff of concern, but if you're just John Q. Public trying to do something more normal, you're in a spot of bother.

It doesn't matter what your project actually does to the environment, if anything. If it suits them, the grant-fed, self-interested Network backed by the credulity of superficially-thinking believers will shake you down and treat you as a likely environmental criminal no matter what you're doing. After all, there is money to be made in stopping environmental menaces like you, and someone in the Network might actually win an award for stopping you too. You are a surrogate for all the environmental ills of the world; as big a potential threat to life on earth as global warming itself. Well, at least that's how the Network can write it up in the next grant application.

So a Network that claims to be saving the planet actually ends up hassling elderly B&B owners (see email below), shellfish farmers, a small business owner who wants to store kayaks in his own barn, and a simple guy who only wants to grow some organic blueberries for his environmentally friendly restaurant. The rich are able to buy their way out of scrutiny; affordable housing proliferates; and the middle class disappears -- the people who usually start businesses and raise families and pay taxes.

The Network does everything it can to prohibit people from working at home and using their land, and then it tries to "solve" the self-inflicted economic crisis by promoting activities that it controls, like eco-tourism and further grant-funded government-sponsored activities. It rails against development, and then promotes development that it runs.

Most of all, the Network tries to get the right people in office ... both elected office and on the Committees ... because the health and well being of the Network depends on who "they" have in office to pull strings. They need enablers. They need government money and complicity. Will the people who vote for a living beat out the people who work for a living?

So far, I think, "they" are winning, especially when you consider rulings like the one described in the B&B email below. Paraphrasing the email below, if "no guarantee of no future impacts" is the new impossible-to-pass litmus test for whether we can do anything anymore, then we're all doomed. It provides the justification for the Friends and the rest of the Network to stop everything. Looking at the Hearing Examiner papers, you can get a sense of the grand Friends/Network strategy for us all. The trick is to maneuver everyone into a potential nonconforming situation, then target us whether there is an impact or not. In the B&B case, the use was denied not because of impacts (there aren't any), but just because nonconforming uses must be phased out because of judicial policy.

Read the email below by clicking on the image. Since it isn't a public records email, I have redacted the personal information. The email is just another disturbing, meddling, pointless injustice perpetrated by the Friends. Aren't you glad the Friends intervened to stop a kindly 82-year old woman from selling her two-room B&B so she could finally retire? That oughta stop the whole global warming thing right in its tracks, don't you think? Well done Network. Well done Friends.

Click to enlarge. Friends intervene to crush B&B owner.