Letter to the editor
The letter to the editor following our comments was published in the August 2, 2006 edition of the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader.
When Jefferson County intially reviewed the existing Critical Areas Ordinance, the Department of Ecology's best available science (BAS) package was available in draft form, and had not yet been issued as a final set of documents. At the time, it was deemed inappropriate to committ the county's residents to guidance that was not yet ready for publication. We agree that it would have been very unwise for the county to make substantial changes to its ordinance based on incomplete guidance. The Washington Environmental Council did not agree with the county's approach, and challenged the results of the county's ordinance review.
When we discuss BAS, there's a small factor that's not often brought into the open . . . there is significant disagreement even within Washington's state agencies as to just what that best science is. This leads us to believe that we should be able to locally craft an ordinance update, supported by science, that meets local needs and requirements, and still be able to successfully defend our work at the Growth Management Hearings Board and beyond.
We are in agreement that it's important to protect our natural resources. We are also of the opinion that it's important to consider human needs when we build a regulatory framework designed to protect ecosystems. We also believe in an approach based on education and incentive, with regulation as a last resort, and that we already have enough regulations in place to meet that occasional eventuality. We have a responsibility to the needs of our children, our grandcihldren, and generations to come. We should work together to make sure that we do not regulate their opportunities to live and work in our landscapes out of their reach.
While the intent of the critical areas ordinance and other growth management tools may be noble, we're not as certain as the author that our farmers will ever find that the current update draft was the best choice of action. We should also remember that the draft update's impacts on non-farm landowners are far more substantial than they are for our farm families. The reason that the initial reaction came so predominantly from the agricultural community is that our farmers have their finger far more closely connected to the pulse of regulation than most other landowners do. Regulations are intimately related to their financial bottom lines in ways unfamiliar to most of us.
We fully understand that we are well out of the 1800s, and our attitudes do not come from those "Wild West" paradigms the author refers to. We know that what we do on our land can easily have effects on our neighbors, and the vast majority of us are good stewards of our lands, often in ways that are unfamiliar to our more urban friends.
It's difficult to think of Jefferson County as overpopulated. Our county is larger than some states, yet has fewer than 30,000 people living in it. 62% of the county is held in federal ownership, and is not available for development. Nearly another 30% is held in state ownership or is otherwise also unavailable for development. That leaves a bit less than 10% of the county available for our use for farming and homes, and most of that is zoned for one house per five acres at its highest density. This is something that should be taken into account when we are drafting land use ordinances and other growth management tools.
When the author refers to the Farm Bureau and the builders, we apparently shift to the property fairness initiative, I-933. Let's please understand that our concerns with the county's critical areas ordinance update is unrelated to the initiative, although there are several members of our community who are concerned about property rights as an issue of its own. It's not a matter of property rights suddenly being taken away . . . it's a matter of those rights being incrementally diminished to the point where their position as constitutional guarantees are in doubt.
We're disappointed that the author found it necessary to move on to push so hard against those who are concerned about their investments as landowners. We're asking for an opportunity to help build a better approach to protecting our critical areas than the regulatory approach proposed in the draft update. We're closing in on that initial goal. We are not asking the letter's author to compensate us for anything, and we're sorry he feels otherwise.
We are concerned about the incrementally more restrictive regulatory framework we have to work with in Jefferson County and elsewhere. We're not pleased that these regulations come our way with the assumption that we cannot be trusted to provide good stewardship for our lands without government suprevision. That's a reality that we would like to see shifted to a framework based on education and incentives encouraging landowners to improve their stewardship practices.
We're uncertain as to where the author is hearing that over a million new residents will relocate here in the next ten years. That's a highly unlikely scenario for Jefferson County, given the growth management plans that are already on the table. Perhaps he's referring to the Puget Sound region as a whole, in which case our current zoning and land ownership patterns will suffice to prevent high population densities locally.
We're not asking the commissioners to toss out the settlement agreement they made with the Washington Environmental Council. Indeed, we are in a time extension that was agreed to by all parties to the settlement. We are merely working toward an improved approach to protecting our critical areas while also protecting our children's opportunities to have a place in Jefferson County.
That's not so much to ask, is it?
When Jefferson County intially reviewed the existing Critical Areas Ordinance, the Department of Ecology's best available science (BAS) package was available in draft form, and had not yet been issued as a final set of documents. At the time, it was deemed inappropriate to committ the county's residents to guidance that was not yet ready for publication. We agree that it would have been very unwise for the county to make substantial changes to its ordinance based on incomplete guidance. The Washington Environmental Council did not agree with the county's approach, and challenged the results of the county's ordinance review.
When we discuss BAS, there's a small factor that's not often brought into the open . . . there is significant disagreement even within Washington's state agencies as to just what that best science is. This leads us to believe that we should be able to locally craft an ordinance update, supported by science, that meets local needs and requirements, and still be able to successfully defend our work at the Growth Management Hearings Board and beyond.
We are in agreement that it's important to protect our natural resources. We are also of the opinion that it's important to consider human needs when we build a regulatory framework designed to protect ecosystems. We also believe in an approach based on education and incentive, with regulation as a last resort, and that we already have enough regulations in place to meet that occasional eventuality. We have a responsibility to the needs of our children, our grandcihldren, and generations to come. We should work together to make sure that we do not regulate their opportunities to live and work in our landscapes out of their reach.
While the intent of the critical areas ordinance and other growth management tools may be noble, we're not as certain as the author that our farmers will ever find that the current update draft was the best choice of action. We should also remember that the draft update's impacts on non-farm landowners are far more substantial than they are for our farm families. The reason that the initial reaction came so predominantly from the agricultural community is that our farmers have their finger far more closely connected to the pulse of regulation than most other landowners do. Regulations are intimately related to their financial bottom lines in ways unfamiliar to most of us.
We fully understand that we are well out of the 1800s, and our attitudes do not come from those "Wild West" paradigms the author refers to. We know that what we do on our land can easily have effects on our neighbors, and the vast majority of us are good stewards of our lands, often in ways that are unfamiliar to our more urban friends.
It's difficult to think of Jefferson County as overpopulated. Our county is larger than some states, yet has fewer than 30,000 people living in it. 62% of the county is held in federal ownership, and is not available for development. Nearly another 30% is held in state ownership or is otherwise also unavailable for development. That leaves a bit less than 10% of the county available for our use for farming and homes, and most of that is zoned for one house per five acres at its highest density. This is something that should be taken into account when we are drafting land use ordinances and other growth management tools.
When the author refers to the Farm Bureau and the builders, we apparently shift to the property fairness initiative, I-933. Let's please understand that our concerns with the county's critical areas ordinance update is unrelated to the initiative, although there are several members of our community who are concerned about property rights as an issue of its own. It's not a matter of property rights suddenly being taken away . . . it's a matter of those rights being incrementally diminished to the point where their position as constitutional guarantees are in doubt.
We're disappointed that the author found it necessary to move on to push so hard against those who are concerned about their investments as landowners. We're asking for an opportunity to help build a better approach to protecting our critical areas than the regulatory approach proposed in the draft update. We're closing in on that initial goal. We are not asking the letter's author to compensate us for anything, and we're sorry he feels otherwise.
We are concerned about the incrementally more restrictive regulatory framework we have to work with in Jefferson County and elsewhere. We're not pleased that these regulations come our way with the assumption that we cannot be trusted to provide good stewardship for our lands without government suprevision. That's a reality that we would like to see shifted to a framework based on education and incentives encouraging landowners to improve their stewardship practices.
We're uncertain as to where the author is hearing that over a million new residents will relocate here in the next ten years. That's a highly unlikely scenario for Jefferson County, given the growth management plans that are already on the table. Perhaps he's referring to the Puget Sound region as a whole, in which case our current zoning and land ownership patterns will suffice to prevent high population densities locally.
We're not asking the commissioners to toss out the settlement agreement they made with the Washington Environmental Council. Indeed, we are in a time extension that was agreed to by all parties to the settlement. We are merely working toward an improved approach to protecting our critical areas while also protecting our children's opportunities to have a place in Jefferson County.
That's not so much to ask, is it?
Say yes to planned growth
Editor, Leader:
This letter is written to state my support of the Washington Environmental Council guidelines for Jefferson County to live up to the law of the Growth Management Act ordinance, which strives to protect critical areas that were largely ignored by past boards of county commissioners.
I think the majority of Jefferson County citizens basically agree with the WEC position in regard to critical areas including wetlands. As a citizen I expect my watersheds and wetlands to be identified and protected, as they are cornerstones to our quality of life. I think many Jefferson County residents also want to sustain open areas and farming. Once the rhetoric is over, many farmers will find the intent of the guidelines make sustainable sense.
I think many opposing the ordinance see it in terms of the Wild West of the 1800s, where there were no neighbors and the manifest destiny doctrine entitled you to your plot of perceived Eden where you did as you pleased and could care less about folks downstream. Guess what, many areas of the West are now overpopulated, with natural resources stretched razor-thin. Protecting sensitive areas where we can and planning for the tremendous future growth is tantamount for our future citizens.
The Farm Bureau and Home Builders Association frame their agenda in terms of the 1800 spirit, where now suddenly your property rights are being taken away and your right to milk the cash cow to exploit as you see fit is being taken away.
I say rules change. Just because you bought property in the past expecting to turn a profit in the future doesn't necessarily mean it will happen. The rules from 50 years ago have changed to accommodate for greater densities and protections not even visualized at that time. Why should I have to compensate you for your risk? You made your bed, lie in it. Don't expect more than sympathy for the changed reality of new and ever-changing landu-use rules reflecting our greater densities.
We in Jefferson County are hearing that over a million new residents will relocate here in the next 10 years. the Realtors and builders will still make their fortunes. Is it too much to ask for clean water? I say yes to regulated, planned gorwth that identifies and protects our precious resources. Please, commissioners, uphold the agreement reached with the WEC to protect our "critical areas."CAVIN RICHIE
Port Ludlow
posted by olyfarm @ 10:16 AM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home