Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
Jefferson County's grant application for a Watershed Stewardship Resource Center
Mr. Richard Parkin, Acting Director
Office of Ecosystems
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98101-31140
Mr. Parkin,
I trust that in the final review of Jefferson County's grant application for a Watershed Stewardship Resource Center you will pay close attention to the accountability of the detailed budget narrative. There appears to be no quantification of how the County arrived at the totals for personnel. And while I haven't had the opportunity to review what was actually submitted to EPA, there is a discrepancy between one version of personnel costs listed on the Standard Form 424A ($349,669.24) and a later version dated 4-20-2010 totaling $466,077.00. This increase significantly raises the fringe benefits. I have not been able to determine the rationale behind this revision, which is notable in that $617,554 out of the total grant proposal of $800,646 is directed toward personnel and benefits.
At a time when so many local jurisdictions are facing all-time budget challenges, it is remarkable this grant is proposing $70,000 rain gardens, $140,000 Stormwater Parks, and $40,000 for plants! Has the world of civic planning populated by agencies, work groups, action networks, stakeholders, consultants, and non-profit partners become so detached from mainstream reality that they fail to recognize the public outrage this generates? The undercurrent running through the purpose for the WSRC is building trust and acceptance in a proposal that seeks to "navigate the dirty waters of regulation." DCD is already a department in financial crisis; to turn around and indulge in this kind of spending shows no respect for taxpayer money. You reap what you sow.
And whether intended or not, word of these figures incites fears that sustainable building practices will substantially raise the cost of single family homes. Most future development in Jefferson will occur on large rural parcels similar in size to the demonstration garden. The demonstration garden is designed to "inspire" homeowners to incorporate LID practices but the prohibitive cost is more deflating. People who spend their own money tend to have a different view of the value of a dollar.
You have already received numerous comments on offers to build rain gardens and the like at a fraction of the cost. Hopefully all aspects of the WSRC will be subject to competitive bidding for services, including open advertising for personnel hires. As the recent embarrassing audit of the Puget Sound Partnership confirms, public funds must be spent in an accountable manner. Contracting of all services and purchases for supplies and equipment should be conducted in a manner that maximizes taxpayer investment.
The number one concern of Jefferson citizens is undoubtedly the general budget. On December 14, 2009, County Administrator Philip Morley advised that "the difficult public service cuts we are recommending in 2010 will position Jefferson County for budget stability in 2010 and 2011 if revenues hold at today's levels. However, by 2012 further program and service cuts will likely be necessary unless the State Legislature or our citizens are willing to provide additional funding to maintain services even at 2010's reduced levels...In 2010 we will need to continue to carefully track actual revenues and expenditures, and adjust our operations to live within our means." Since then it is apparent even modest revenue projections are not holding. Meanwhile, Jefferson County proposes additional expenditures such as $30,000/yr. for a Resource Conservation Manager, $10,000/yr. for an Economist, and at least $30,000/yr. for the WSRC. In the case of the WSRC, DCD is hoping to leverage its match for what amounts to a $530,000 fund transfer to sustain the financial health of the department. Expenditures are self-propagating, and what happens in 2012? The WSRC budget contains no structural changes to the current DCD model that are truly sustainable.
Simple as we are perceived to be, the public understands this in a second. The Logic Model is based on the premise that environmentally-minded (obsessed?) DCD staff will, through an elaborate social marketing program and an inspirational demonstration garden, be able to convince people to "change their behavior." In going through the WSRC files it is obvious to a blind man that the regulatory mentality behind the WSRC utterly fails to relate to the typical citizen applying for a permit in any meaningful way. It speaks volumes for just how out of touch this proposal is that I believe its authors fully do not understand how condescending they are coming across. Particularly offensive is the objective "Watershed Center staff is trained to understand how to position desired behavior against competing unwanted behavior." Mr. Parkin, people do not want to live inside the heads of policy wonkers!
Please explain the logic predicated upon a 50% success rate during a roughly 200% decline in permit activity (from 2006 highs), and how this correlates to the need for an $800,000 advisory program with $70k rain gardens and $40k for plants - installed - during a recession! Hello? I can assure you that the citizens of Jefferson County will engage in their own social marketing program in opposition to the WSRC. It will be extensive, grassroots, will relate to regular people, and best of all the cost is $ZERO.
Returning to the repeating theme of building trust with the public, which DCD acknowledges as a problem or it wouldn't be such a focus of attention, recent actions have demonstrated that rather than an inspiring experience, a visit to DCD ends more likely in visible frustration and even a decision to look outside Jefferson County for future residence. Amongst the County files on the WSRC is the rhetorical question, "Why a Watershed Stewardship Center?" The answer is "DCD proactive response and structural rebuilt for" followed a a series of environment-based bullet points. This sentence indicates DCD is shifting its mission to an enviro-centric model of permit processing - a dramatic shift from traditional objective evaluation of building permits. Our state laws and codes are based on the principles of the balancing of the 14 Growth Management Act planning goals. It is the single-minded pursuit of environmental protection, which ironically further complicates rather than simplifies permit administration, that is what has built public distrust to begin with. The WSRC will turn existing distrust into a bonfire. To quote a County observation from Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Our distrust is very expensive." You can't build trust from a negative, which the WSRC assumes from people simply wanting a home.
Finally, I have to ask what is meant in the same document by the prediction "The next ten years will see: The Puget Sound initiative will have failed and the environmental impacts of urbanization will have affected water and air quality. Nature will adjust and heal in a different biological and botanical pattern." Is the necessity for the WSRC and its innovative coaching model, which is driven by the Puget Sound Partnership, based proactively upon the anticipated failure of the PSP?
Jim Hagen
Jefferson County
Office of Ecosystems
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98101-31140
Mr. Parkin,
I trust that in the final review of Jefferson County's grant application for a Watershed Stewardship Resource Center you will pay close attention to the accountability of the detailed budget narrative. There appears to be no quantification of how the County arrived at the totals for personnel. And while I haven't had the opportunity to review what was actually submitted to EPA, there is a discrepancy between one version of personnel costs listed on the Standard Form 424A ($349,669.24) and a later version dated 4-20-2010 totaling $466,077.00. This increase significantly raises the fringe benefits. I have not been able to determine the rationale behind this revision, which is notable in that $617,554 out of the total grant proposal of $800,646 is directed toward personnel and benefits.
At a time when so many local jurisdictions are facing all-time budget challenges, it is remarkable this grant is proposing $70,000 rain gardens, $140,000 Stormwater Parks, and $40,000 for plants! Has the world of civic planning populated by agencies, work groups, action networks, stakeholders, consultants, and non-profit partners become so detached from mainstream reality that they fail to recognize the public outrage this generates? The undercurrent running through the purpose for the WSRC is building trust and acceptance in a proposal that seeks to "navigate the dirty waters of regulation." DCD is already a department in financial crisis; to turn around and indulge in this kind of spending shows no respect for taxpayer money. You reap what you sow.
And whether intended or not, word of these figures incites fears that sustainable building practices will substantially raise the cost of single family homes. Most future development in Jefferson will occur on large rural parcels similar in size to the demonstration garden. The demonstration garden is designed to "inspire" homeowners to incorporate LID practices but the prohibitive cost is more deflating. People who spend their own money tend to have a different view of the value of a dollar.
You have already received numerous comments on offers to build rain gardens and the like at a fraction of the cost. Hopefully all aspects of the WSRC will be subject to competitive bidding for services, including open advertising for personnel hires. As the recent embarrassing audit of the Puget Sound Partnership confirms, public funds must be spent in an accountable manner. Contracting of all services and purchases for supplies and equipment should be conducted in a manner that maximizes taxpayer investment.
The number one concern of Jefferson citizens is undoubtedly the general budget. On December 14, 2009, County Administrator Philip Morley advised that "the difficult public service cuts we are recommending in 2010 will position Jefferson County for budget stability in 2010 and 2011 if revenues hold at today's levels. However, by 2012 further program and service cuts will likely be necessary unless the State Legislature or our citizens are willing to provide additional funding to maintain services even at 2010's reduced levels...In 2010 we will need to continue to carefully track actual revenues and expenditures, and adjust our operations to live within our means." Since then it is apparent even modest revenue projections are not holding. Meanwhile, Jefferson County proposes additional expenditures such as $30,000/yr. for a Resource Conservation Manager, $10,000/yr. for an Economist, and at least $30,000/yr. for the WSRC. In the case of the WSRC, DCD is hoping to leverage its match for what amounts to a $530,000 fund transfer to sustain the financial health of the department. Expenditures are self-propagating, and what happens in 2012? The WSRC budget contains no structural changes to the current DCD model that are truly sustainable.
Simple as we are perceived to be, the public understands this in a second. The Logic Model is based on the premise that environmentally-minded (obsessed?) DCD staff will, through an elaborate social marketing program and an inspirational demonstration garden, be able to convince people to "change their behavior." In going through the WSRC files it is obvious to a blind man that the regulatory mentality behind the WSRC utterly fails to relate to the typical citizen applying for a permit in any meaningful way. It speaks volumes for just how out of touch this proposal is that I believe its authors fully do not understand how condescending they are coming across. Particularly offensive is the objective "Watershed Center staff is trained to understand how to position desired behavior against competing unwanted behavior." Mr. Parkin, people do not want to live inside the heads of policy wonkers!
Please explain the logic predicated upon a 50% success rate during a roughly 200% decline in permit activity (from 2006 highs), and how this correlates to the need for an $800,000 advisory program with $70k rain gardens and $40k for plants - installed - during a recession! Hello? I can assure you that the citizens of Jefferson County will engage in their own social marketing program in opposition to the WSRC. It will be extensive, grassroots, will relate to regular people, and best of all the cost is $ZERO.
Returning to the repeating theme of building trust with the public, which DCD acknowledges as a problem or it wouldn't be such a focus of attention, recent actions have demonstrated that rather than an inspiring experience, a visit to DCD ends more likely in visible frustration and even a decision to look outside Jefferson County for future residence. Amongst the County files on the WSRC is the rhetorical question, "Why a Watershed Stewardship Center?" The answer is "DCD proactive response and structural rebuilt for" followed a a series of environment-based bullet points. This sentence indicates DCD is shifting its mission to an enviro-centric model of permit processing - a dramatic shift from traditional objective evaluation of building permits. Our state laws and codes are based on the principles of the balancing of the 14 Growth Management Act planning goals. It is the single-minded pursuit of environmental protection, which ironically further complicates rather than simplifies permit administration, that is what has built public distrust to begin with. The WSRC will turn existing distrust into a bonfire. To quote a County observation from Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Our distrust is very expensive." You can't build trust from a negative, which the WSRC assumes from people simply wanting a home.
Finally, I have to ask what is meant in the same document by the prediction "The next ten years will see: The Puget Sound initiative will have failed and the environmental impacts of urbanization will have affected water and air quality. Nature will adjust and heal in a different biological and botanical pattern." Is the necessity for the WSRC and its innovative coaching model, which is driven by the Puget Sound Partnership, based proactively upon the anticipated failure of the PSP?
Jim Hagen
Jefferson County
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Open Letter to the Board of County Commissioners
Jefferson County Commissioners,
~ We are writing to voice concern over the proposed JEA / Jefferson County Horse Park. As the majority neighbors to the 80 acre county parcel along our NE property boundaries, our family is very concerned with the impact the proposed horse park will have on our property, home, business and peace of mind here on Cape George Road. In 2009 we completed a deal with the county by trading a portion of our property to allow county access into the parcel from the road. Over the years we have maintained a good relationship with the Dept. of Public Works but now have serious concerns with JEA's recent plans for development of the land and proposed horse park. While we would welcome low impact and limited development on the neighboring parcel -- ( ie. sm. parking area and non-motorized bike, hiking and horse trails ) the current JEA proposal calls for expansive bulldozing, grading and major "improvements" to a timber parcel that is naturally contoured ( very far from level ) and has already been re-planted with flourishing and growing timber. Although a very small user group, JEA's development plans are clear and as proposed this is not merely a small recreational project but a major commercial venture expanding into a rural residential area.
~ Our family is familiar with the county acreage as its neighbor for some time and be assured that this parcel is far from a logged out wasteland. We have observed deer, elk, coyotes, bobcats, cougar, bear, eagles, owls and other animals that live, nest and breed on this county land including the 80 acre parcel in question. The development of the parcel into public parking lots, stables, trails and horse arenas will surely alter this habitat forever. Our community is well known for its environmental conscious and all should be aware that the development of this project as proposed will exploit and destroy a vibrant and growing forest ecosystem. The proposed plans for the JEA horse park development will certainly impact our own property, home and business as well. We are concerned about the increase of people and vehicle traffic adjacent to our property as a result of the parks development, access and events. Consequential noise, security, trespass and maintenance will result from this newly developed neighboring park. Is JEA and the County prepared for the time and expense to manage this park during and after hours ? As the sole neighbors to the western side of the park we do not want the burden of overseeing its impact to that part of our our property. Security issues and trespass have always been a concern from the surrounding county land and these issues will certainly increase for us with this new park. The current site plans also allows for stables and the boarding of a substantial number of horses directly along our eastern property border and we certainly do not want the noise or smell the result of 60 or more large horses directly outside our front door !
~ As stewards of the county you should uphold being good neighbors to both the environment and the community and not allow the JEA Horse Park development as currently planned . Unlike the recent press on the issue this is not simply a win/ win situation for all those involved. The horse park is a large commercial venture proposed by a very small user group for their own benefit. This project will impact the county, taxpayer, environment and neighbors at great expense.
As concerned neighbors,
David and Tiffany Drewry and Family
1280 Cape George Road
Port Townsend
~ We are writing to voice concern over the proposed JEA / Jefferson County Horse Park. As the majority neighbors to the 80 acre county parcel along our NE property boundaries, our family is very concerned with the impact the proposed horse park will have on our property, home, business and peace of mind here on Cape George Road. In 2009 we completed a deal with the county by trading a portion of our property to allow county access into the parcel from the road. Over the years we have maintained a good relationship with the Dept. of Public Works but now have serious concerns with JEA's recent plans for development of the land and proposed horse park. While we would welcome low impact and limited development on the neighboring parcel -- ( ie. sm. parking area and non-motorized bike, hiking and horse trails ) the current JEA proposal calls for expansive bulldozing, grading and major "improvements" to a timber parcel that is naturally contoured ( very far from level ) and has already been re-planted with flourishing and growing timber. Although a very small user group, JEA's development plans are clear and as proposed this is not merely a small recreational project but a major commercial venture expanding into a rural residential area.
~ Our family is familiar with the county acreage as its neighbor for some time and be assured that this parcel is far from a logged out wasteland. We have observed deer, elk, coyotes, bobcats, cougar, bear, eagles, owls and other animals that live, nest and breed on this county land including the 80 acre parcel in question. The development of the parcel into public parking lots, stables, trails and horse arenas will surely alter this habitat forever. Our community is well known for its environmental conscious and all should be aware that the development of this project as proposed will exploit and destroy a vibrant and growing forest ecosystem. The proposed plans for the JEA horse park development will certainly impact our own property, home and business as well. We are concerned about the increase of people and vehicle traffic adjacent to our property as a result of the parks development, access and events. Consequential noise, security, trespass and maintenance will result from this newly developed neighboring park. Is JEA and the County prepared for the time and expense to manage this park during and after hours ? As the sole neighbors to the western side of the park we do not want the burden of overseeing its impact to that part of our our property. Security issues and trespass have always been a concern from the surrounding county land and these issues will certainly increase for us with this new park. The current site plans also allows for stables and the boarding of a substantial number of horses directly along our eastern property border and we certainly do not want the noise or smell the result of 60 or more large horses directly outside our front door !
~ As stewards of the county you should uphold being good neighbors to both the environment and the community and not allow the JEA Horse Park development as currently planned . Unlike the recent press on the issue this is not simply a win/ win situation for all those involved. The horse park is a large commercial venture proposed by a very small user group for their own benefit. This project will impact the county, taxpayer, environment and neighbors at great expense.
As concerned neighbors,
David and Tiffany Drewry and Family
1280 Cape George Road
Port Townsend
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Jefferson County Attorney Blasts SSNW Nonconforming Status During Oral Arguments
Jefferson County Attorney Blasts SSNW Nonconforming Status During Oral Arguments
Fort Discovery, WA - On Monday, May 10, Security Services NW (SSNW) and Jefferson County met nose to nose in Kitsap County Superior Court before the Honorable Judge Roof. In what was a once highly publicized case (backed by Commissioner David Sullivan's political mo-jo and Prosecutor Julie Dalzell; combined with political pressure by the now debunked Discovery Bay Alliance (DBA)), is now not even a blip on the radar. The former gangs of the DBA (who complained about noise, even though there's no noise ordinance in Jefferson County) who had previously cheered on their man Mark Johnsen ( Jefferson County's hired gun) are now silent. The only person sitting in the entire courtroom was a single SSNW employee, hopeful that he would remain employed with SSNW.
Much of the arguments surrounded SSNW’s nonconforming use as it existed prior to the adoption of the Jan. 6, 1992 Code. Attorney Johnsen, on behalf of Jefferson County, argued that nonconforming uses in Washington State are disfavored because they don't conform to current land use regulations. Attorney Reynolds argued for SSNW that Jefferson County didn't regulate the intensification or expansion of nonconforming uses until as late as 2001 or even 2005. Additionally, the 1992 code was never noticed to the public and expired by rule of law in 1992 after eight months. There was even a second 1992 Ordinance passed Jan 27, 1992 (#2-0127-92), which had a more liberal interruption of nonconforming uses. Did I forget to mention the 1992 ordinance, which expired, was also repealed and replaced by the 1994 ordinance? Nevertheless, Johnsen argued that SSNW should be frozen in time and not allowed to grow its business, nor should the Hearing Examiner who heard the SSNW case be allowed to review any codes after 1992. Johnsen's argument was based on the fact that SSNW had three employees in 1992 and SSNW now has forty (before the lawsuit started, SSNW had 150 employees). Therefore, that's all the employees SSNW should only be allowed today. In a twenty year period, its Jefferson County’s legal position that your employees in nonconforming uses shouldn't be allowed to grow or expand. Does anyone hear the words "Insane". Only in Jefferson County. There is not one reported case in the State of Washington, which limits the number of employees a business is allowed to have unless you apply for a conditional use permit (CUP). SSNW did not have to apply for a conditional use permit because SSNW is a legal nonconforming business. What's even more disturbing is Jefferson County is holding only SSNW to this standard therefore discriminating against our employees, SSNW, and fair trade. Not to mention fair treatment under the Constitution of the United States and the State Constitution.
Another most interesting fact of the case is that Jefferson County’s position relies on a phantom Administrative Rule, which was never adopted by the BOCC. Here Attorney Johnsen on behalf of Jefferson County misrepresented to the Court of Appeals that it was an Ordinance supposedly adopted by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners. Johnsen briefed the Court that, “Similar regulations were applicable as far back as 1992. As the Examiner noted, after enactment of the Zoning Code in 1992, a property owner or tenant wishing to expand or alter a nonconforming use was required to submit an application for review by the Hearing Examiner. 1992 Administrative Rule IX, Ordinance 2-0127-92. (CP 36, CP 333- 337).”
Because Jefferson County didn't follow their own codes, regulations, ordinances, moral responsibly, and the law of the land, what was once a simple case of nonconforming use has morphed into a case filled with ex-parte communications, hidden and destroyed records at DCD and the County, and misrepresentations to the courts. One can only hope that the truth will prevail and those responsible for this mess are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and that SSNW is compensated for all its damages and lost business.
Fort Discovery, WA - On Monday, May 10, Security Services NW (SSNW) and Jefferson County met nose to nose in Kitsap County Superior Court before the Honorable Judge Roof. In what was a once highly publicized case (backed by Commissioner David Sullivan's political mo-jo and Prosecutor Julie Dalzell; combined with political pressure by the now debunked Discovery Bay Alliance (DBA)), is now not even a blip on the radar. The former gangs of the DBA (who complained about noise, even though there's no noise ordinance in Jefferson County) who had previously cheered on their man Mark Johnsen ( Jefferson County's hired gun) are now silent. The only person sitting in the entire courtroom was a single SSNW employee, hopeful that he would remain employed with SSNW.
Much of the arguments surrounded SSNW’s nonconforming use as it existed prior to the adoption of the Jan. 6, 1992 Code. Attorney Johnsen, on behalf of Jefferson County, argued that nonconforming uses in Washington State are disfavored because they don't conform to current land use regulations. Attorney Reynolds argued for SSNW that Jefferson County didn't regulate the intensification or expansion of nonconforming uses until as late as 2001 or even 2005. Additionally, the 1992 code was never noticed to the public and expired by rule of law in 1992 after eight months. There was even a second 1992 Ordinance passed Jan 27, 1992 (#2-0127-92), which had a more liberal interruption of nonconforming uses. Did I forget to mention the 1992 ordinance, which expired, was also repealed and replaced by the 1994 ordinance? Nevertheless, Johnsen argued that SSNW should be frozen in time and not allowed to grow its business, nor should the Hearing Examiner who heard the SSNW case be allowed to review any codes after 1992. Johnsen's argument was based on the fact that SSNW had three employees in 1992 and SSNW now has forty (before the lawsuit started, SSNW had 150 employees). Therefore, that's all the employees SSNW should only be allowed today. In a twenty year period, its Jefferson County’s legal position that your employees in nonconforming uses shouldn't be allowed to grow or expand. Does anyone hear the words "Insane". Only in Jefferson County. There is not one reported case in the State of Washington, which limits the number of employees a business is allowed to have unless you apply for a conditional use permit (CUP). SSNW did not have to apply for a conditional use permit because SSNW is a legal nonconforming business. What's even more disturbing is Jefferson County is holding only SSNW to this standard therefore discriminating against our employees, SSNW, and fair trade. Not to mention fair treatment under the Constitution of the United States and the State Constitution.
Another most interesting fact of the case is that Jefferson County’s position relies on a phantom Administrative Rule, which was never adopted by the BOCC. Here Attorney Johnsen on behalf of Jefferson County misrepresented to the Court of Appeals that it was an Ordinance supposedly adopted by the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners. Johnsen briefed the Court that, “Similar regulations were applicable as far back as 1992. As the Examiner noted, after enactment of the Zoning Code in 1992, a property owner or tenant wishing to expand or alter a nonconforming use was required to submit an application for review by the Hearing Examiner. 1992 Administrative Rule IX, Ordinance 2-0127-92. (CP 36, CP 333- 337).”
Because Jefferson County didn't follow their own codes, regulations, ordinances, moral responsibly, and the law of the land, what was once a simple case of nonconforming use has morphed into a case filled with ex-parte communications, hidden and destroyed records at DCD and the County, and misrepresentations to the courts. One can only hope that the truth will prevail and those responsible for this mess are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and that SSNW is compensated for all its damages and lost business.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Letter to the EPA
Mr. Richard Parkin, Acting Director
Office of Ecosystems
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98101-31140
Mr. Parkin,
The application and approval process for Funding Opportunity Number EPA-R10-PS-1001 (Watershed Stewardship Resource Center) has included numerous theoretical project plans, estimates, projections, and assumptions addressing how the Center might function in practical application. Three recent episodes during the past couple weeks might provide some insight into how accurately the WSRC project plan assumptions actually hold up when tested under real life circumstances.
On April 19th a local community association hosted a panel discussion on the Shoreline Master Program. Jill Silver, one of the main proponents behind the WRSC concept since 2006, was the primary speaker and her presentation was instructional on how the WRSC might resonate with the typical permit applicant the Center is designed to serve. I say typical because the audience consisted not of policy activists who have followed the SMP but who are just now, as the message below states, just "tuning in for the first time in this nearly 5-year process."
Ms. Silver's presentation consisted of a nearly one-hour treatise on the value and processes of shoreline ecological functions, described in numbing techno jargon-speak that went way over the audience's head. There is an art to communicating complicated, Greek-to-me concepts into terms the layperson can understand but this was pure "inside baseball." During questioning on the consequences of the new regulations it became apparent Ms. Silver was surprisingly uninformed on the actual content of the SMP, repeatedly saying she didn't have that information right in front of her. This is a common response for activists driven by environmental ideals rather than jurisdiction-specific public policy tailored for particular conditions, but hardly an asset for a public position that has been promoted as assisting applicants through the permit "maze." As the Q & A further progressed it was clear Ms. Silver's single-minded passion for ecological protection wasn't relating to the overwhelming concerns expressed by the group, especially on the impact of buffers on their property. (She called the 150 foot buffers "too small" but "politically feasible."). Ms. Silver several times used the phrase "this is what I think" as opposed to "I can understand your concerns," a distinction not lost on the group. If the raised eyebrows in the room acted as a barometer for how the WSRC might enable acceptance of increasingly comprehensive land-use regulation and improved relations between the citizen and regulator, this trial run was a failure.
On April 20th the Department of Ecology hosted a public hearing on the Locally Approved SMP that is now under their review for final approval. Roughly 200 citizens attended, and by a show of hands nearly 90% were against the LASMP. Of the approximately 90 people who spoke, I counted 11 who were in support of the LASMP and 10 of them were from within the Port Townsend city limits, where their own SMP rules. Again the support was characterized not in relation to specific needs but through invocation of general environmental ideals and anecdotal references to apocalyptic scenarios. Was the voice of the majority acknowledged? No, they were marginalized by the minority as misinformed. How often can so many be so wrong? The populace of rural Jefferson County is at their wits end with their voice being ignored or even subverted by Port Townsend interests. How those interests, exemplified by Jill Silver and Sam Gibboney and the WRSC, can be expected to represent and gain the trust of rural folks who will be the ones actually using the center (PT has their own Planning Department) has yet to be qualified in the grant application submittals.
Finally, I refer you to the message below. For a county employee to use a public information listserve as a bully pulpit to address "a mix of facts and rumors circulating through our community" is totally inappropriate and counter to the spirit if not he law of state public participation statutes. Mind you, the DOE is presently soliciting the public for their input so they may evaluate all available information in support of a final decision. For the lead DCD SMP planner to insinuate that there are "rumors" (translation: objections/dissent) circulating about sends a chilling message and discourages citizens who are already shy about expressing their views from doing so now. What this really amounts to is an attempt to influence and control the flow of information during a public process. Jefferson County is not a state-run information agency, nor is Michelle McConnell the arbiter of what is fact and what is fiction. There is an important distinction between rumors, which have a negative connotation, and a difference in interpretation. The SMP is a complex undertaking that has lasted four years. Both the Courts and the Legislature have had difficulty clarifying fundamental aspects of how protection of our shoreline is to be undertaken. For Ms. McConnell and DCD to characterize interpretations of the SMP they don't agree with as rumors only reveals their advocacy-driven slant and disregard for the public they are intended to serve. Very simply,the formal public comment period is the time for the people to speak and policy and decision-makers to LISTEN.
All through the so-called SMP "public process" citizen dissent has been labeled as rumor, misinformed, or myths. What is clear is that when DCD states it wants citizens to be informed it really means it wants them to conform. Every source listed below for "information" is from a government agency. To this day the County has refused to answer the real Frequently Asked Questions as they have been posed by the citizens. The 200 page SMP comes with fineprint and unforeseen consequenses. The rubber meets the road in the real world. This is a one-dimensional debate that hardly facilitates meaningful public involvement that might result in acceptance of a legitimate final product. But such is the insular culture in DCD. This would normally be of little interest to you at EPA, except you are now in the middle of a hefty funding allocation to promote concepts and ideas that have been sold to you on paper but hardly in practice, as these three incidents readily expose. Actions speak louder than words, and in that context the WRSC project narrative is not education but indoctrination. Lacking authoritarian military rule, indoctrination has an historically poor success rate. The County and the State seem to be gambling that eventually the people will "come around." That too has predictably failed time after time. It is so much easier, and less expensive, to LISTEN before you leap.
Jim Hagen
Jefferson County
Office of Ecosystems
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900
Seattle, WA 98101-31140
Mr. Parkin,
The application and approval process for Funding Opportunity Number EPA-R10-PS-1001 (Watershed Stewardship Resource Center) has included numerous theoretical project plans, estimates, projections, and assumptions addressing how the Center might function in practical application. Three recent episodes during the past couple weeks might provide some insight into how accurately the WSRC project plan assumptions actually hold up when tested under real life circumstances.
On April 19th a local community association hosted a panel discussion on the Shoreline Master Program. Jill Silver, one of the main proponents behind the WRSC concept since 2006, was the primary speaker and her presentation was instructional on how the WRSC might resonate with the typical permit applicant the Center is designed to serve. I say typical because the audience consisted not of policy activists who have followed the SMP but who are just now, as the message below states, just "tuning in for the first time in this nearly 5-year process."
Ms. Silver's presentation consisted of a nearly one-hour treatise on the value and processes of shoreline ecological functions, described in numbing techno jargon-speak that went way over the audience's head. There is an art to communicating complicated, Greek-to-me concepts into terms the layperson can understand but this was pure "inside baseball." During questioning on the consequences of the new regulations it became apparent Ms. Silver was surprisingly uninformed on the actual content of the SMP, repeatedly saying she didn't have that information right in front of her. This is a common response for activists driven by environmental ideals rather than jurisdiction-specific public policy tailored for particular conditions, but hardly an asset for a public position that has been promoted as assisting applicants through the permit "maze." As the Q & A further progressed it was clear Ms. Silver's single-minded passion for ecological protection wasn't relating to the overwhelming concerns expressed by the group, especially on the impact of buffers on their property. (She called the 150 foot buffers "too small" but "politically feasible."). Ms. Silver several times used the phrase "this is what I think" as opposed to "I can understand your concerns," a distinction not lost on the group. If the raised eyebrows in the room acted as a barometer for how the WSRC might enable acceptance of increasingly comprehensive land-use regulation and improved relations between the citizen and regulator, this trial run was a failure.
On April 20th the Department of Ecology hosted a public hearing on the Locally Approved SMP that is now under their review for final approval. Roughly 200 citizens attended, and by a show of hands nearly 90% were against the LASMP. Of the approximately 90 people who spoke, I counted 11 who were in support of the LASMP and 10 of them were from within the Port Townsend city limits, where their own SMP rules. Again the support was characterized not in relation to specific needs but through invocation of general environmental ideals and anecdotal references to apocalyptic scenarios. Was the voice of the majority acknowledged? No, they were marginalized by the minority as misinformed. How often can so many be so wrong? The populace of rural Jefferson County is at their wits end with their voice being ignored or even subverted by Port Townsend interests. How those interests, exemplified by Jill Silver and Sam Gibboney and the WRSC, can be expected to represent and gain the trust of rural folks who will be the ones actually using the center (PT has their own Planning Department) has yet to be qualified in the grant application submittals.
Finally, I refer you to the message below. For a county employee to use a public information listserve as a bully pulpit to address "a mix of facts and rumors circulating through our community" is totally inappropriate and counter to the spirit if not he law of state public participation statutes. Mind you, the DOE is presently soliciting the public for their input so they may evaluate all available information in support of a final decision. For the lead DCD SMP planner to insinuate that there are "rumors" (translation: objections/dissent) circulating about sends a chilling message and discourages citizens who are already shy about expressing their views from doing so now. What this really amounts to is an attempt to influence and control the flow of information during a public process. Jefferson County is not a state-run information agency, nor is Michelle McConnell the arbiter of what is fact and what is fiction. There is an important distinction between rumors, which have a negative connotation, and a difference in interpretation. The SMP is a complex undertaking that has lasted four years. Both the Courts and the Legislature have had difficulty clarifying fundamental aspects of how protection of our shoreline is to be undertaken. For Ms. McConnell and DCD to characterize interpretations of the SMP they don't agree with as rumors only reveals their advocacy-driven slant and disregard for the public they are intended to serve. Very simply,the formal public comment period is the time for the people to speak and policy and decision-makers to LISTEN.
All through the so-called SMP "public process" citizen dissent has been labeled as rumor, misinformed, or myths. What is clear is that when DCD states it wants citizens to be informed it really means it wants them to conform. Every source listed below for "information" is from a government agency. To this day the County has refused to answer the real Frequently Asked Questions as they have been posed by the citizens. The 200 page SMP comes with fineprint and unforeseen consequenses. The rubber meets the road in the real world. This is a one-dimensional debate that hardly facilitates meaningful public involvement that might result in acceptance of a legitimate final product. But such is the insular culture in DCD. This would normally be of little interest to you at EPA, except you are now in the middle of a hefty funding allocation to promote concepts and ideas that have been sold to you on paper but hardly in practice, as these three incidents readily expose. Actions speak louder than words, and in that context the WRSC project narrative is not education but indoctrination. Lacking authoritarian military rule, indoctrination has an historically poor success rate. The County and the State seem to be gambling that eventually the people will "come around." That too has predictably failed time after time. It is so much easier, and less expensive, to LISTEN before you leap.
Jim Hagen
Jefferson County
Monday, May 3, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
