Interview With A Real Estate Agent

Thank you for taking the time to sit down for this interview.
No problem. I have lots of time lately. I am a real estate agent. Things are pretty slow right now. We have homeowners who want to or need to sell, but not many buyers.

It may seem like a silly question, with home sales all over the country suffering, but why do you think things are so slow in San Juan County?
A lot of it is the national economy. People didn’t want to make a commitment to buy a house when they are not sure their income or retirement is secure. Those who were going to sell a home somewhere else and move to the islands, can’t find a buyer for their original home so are stuck.

You say there are lots of properties for sale. Is this a good time to buy in the San Juan Islands?
Yes it is. There are plenty of choices and prices are down. This is a great place to live.

Are there other problems affecting the local housing market that are not tied to the overall national slowdown in sales?
The biggest local problem is the County’s new draft Critical Areas Ordinance that the county planners and the Council are working on. The direction of the new Critical Areas Ordinance spooks buyers and sellers alike. Prospective buyers don’t want to buy an existing house that might be designated as a non-conforming use.

Anyone who is interested in buying bare land to build their own home has no idea where on a parcel they might be allowed to build. The unknown costs of getting permission to build from the County or how much of the land they are buying will be designated as a CAO no-touch nature reserve are big factors.

So I gather it will be good to get the CAO passed as soon as possible so buyers know what they can or can’t do on their land?
I know that is what the Council and the environmentalists are saying. In a small way it is true. People won’t make a large investment and commitment in the San Juan Islands if they don’t know what the new rules are finally going to say ..... or what they will actually able to use if they buy. Homeowners want to enjoy the home or land they have bought. The don’t want to contend with a long drawn-out hassle with the local officials.

I notice you say, “in a small way.” Is there more to it than getting the final ordinance passed so people know what the rules will be?
Yes! As I said, the hassle factor is a problem. A long and expensive process with hired scientists and consultants and uncertainty with Community Development and Planning Department are a big negative.

Also, the proposed rules being considered by the Council: large off-limit buffers on properties; non-conforming designations encumbering existing homes and uses; postage stamp building envelopes on bare land and a mess of rules; regulations; permits, and studies to get the County’s permission to do most anything on private property.... are all big negatives. The value of homes and bare land will likely decline further.

This sounds serious. I gather you don’t think the Council is considering the local property owners when they are proposing their regulations?
It is not just a problem for property owners. It is a problem for small businesses, jobs, working families, retirees ... everyone.

The ownership of homes, the construction of homes, the services for people who live in homes, are the real drivers of our local economy. We get an influx of tourists for two months out of the year which is great, but tourism will not sustain the kind of community and quality of life we all treasure in the islands.

Just look at the communities along the Washington coast that get the tourists in the summer and starve in the winter. Those communities barely function, much less support a quality of life we have in the San Juan Islands.

The other extreme is Nantucket or Martha’s Vineyard. Nice places if you have mega bucks but not a good place if you are a middle class working family. If this “highly regulated community” track continues for very long, we will end up as one or the other. The unique quality of life we have nurtured in the islands will be gone.

Why are we ending up with this local “regulated community” problem you are concerned about?
These are choices being made by the politicians we elected. I guess we elected the wrong people.

I can give them the benefit of the doubt and say to myself that they must think tightening the regulatory screw on their neighbors is necessary or beneficial at some level. How they can have that view I don’t have a clue.

Citizens are one step away from revolt. The “silent majority” is shouting to be recognized. The public is telling the elected officials they are just plain wrong, misguided, misinformed or out of touch. We have a critical dysfunctional government problem, not a Critical Areas problem.

The general public gets the CAO stuff. They know what the law requires, what protections the local environment requires, and what the State law requires. The Council does not. I don’t understand why the Council members can’t see how out of step they are with their neighbors and the citizens who elected them.

So you lay this problem with the County Council, and not GMA or the State?
GMA is not the problem. Actually GMA has 14 goals that, if balanced and working together, all make sense for good community planning.

The problem is that the planners think protecting Critical Areas with a massive regulatory approach is more important than any other part of the GMA. It is stupid, but it is part of what is driving this.

Who ever heard of a community comprehensive plan where everything, housing, jobs, transportation, levels of service, everything ... 13 other important planning elements.... takes a back seat to massive regulations to fence off every wet spot in the islands from human contact?

There has not been any effort or interest by the planners for maintaining a balanced comprehensive plan for the County. The planners insist that everything else in GMA takes a distant back seat to protecting critical areas. The Council doesn’t seem to get the idea either. Commons sense is out the window.

You say the rules being proposed will “fence off” every wet spot. What do you mean?
The current proposal identifies everything wet in the islands for protection and buffers. That includes streams that dry up in the summer, pastures that have puddles in the winter, drainage ways and ditches, wetlands from the smallest to the largest and everything in between.

If you have seen the map of proposed wetlands and buffers that Common Sense Alliance has prepared from the County’s own maps nearly every property in the islands is encumbered.

The property owner will be facing pages of new regulations mandated science studies and required setbacks trying to get the County’s permission to do most anything new or different on their property. It is nuts!

You don’t think wetlands are important?
Sure I do. So does everyone else in the islands. Having a stream or wetland on your property used to be valued, a source of enjoyment for the owner; a special place to watch and enjoy the wildlife and nature.

Streams and wetlands were considered an asset in terms of the value of the property and enjoyment for the property owner. The same was true with having a home on the shoreline. Now being within 300 feet of a wetland, stream or the shoreline is a serious liability for the owner.

With the proposed buffer restrictions, many property owners are going to be effectively excluded for most uses and enjoyment of the land around their stream, wetland or shoreline. Not only that, many will be designated as “non-conforming” on the uses they already have!

Why do you think the Council is doing this?
I honestly don’t know.

They seem to be fixated on the idea that the State is requiring them to do what they are doing. That is hogwash and everyone knows it.

For some reason they seem to think that they are the only adults in the room and that the rest of the island’s citizens are children to be directed and manipulated. Islanders are being treated like peasants by the folks in the “big house.”

Two of the Council members sat through a community meeting of 200 plus people about the CAO on Orcas. It was nice of them to show up but they made no effort to mix with the people and exited stage left as soon as they could. They seemed to be on a mission, running for the most unpopular citizens of the year.

If they supported the people who elected them they could be the honored as the Grand Marshals in the 4th of July parade. It is a real puzzle; something no one has ever seen before in how local elected officials act. It is the same behavior by the rest of the Council as well except for Rich Peterson. He seems to notice that folks are upset.

What do you think will happen?
I am hopeful that the Council will wake up and represent the people who live here.

That would help the economy, the tax base, the folks who are trying to sell and buy property, me as a realtor, contractors, builders and most everyone. Elections are coming up. There will be a proposal of some sort to amend the County Charter. Those things can be factors in the longer run.

Hopefully either the folks who are in office now will change their direction or new people will take over who are more attuned to the needs of the community. Elections have consequences is the saying. I am cautiously optimistic islanders will vote wisely.

The above is part -2 of "interviews" for the imaginary In-The-Tank Rock Circle News. The first spoof on this theme is below. John Evans is a Columnist for The Island Guardian, Farmer and nurseryman in Doe Bay, County Commissioner for 12 years, Current Chairman of the San Juan County Republican Party, Executive Director of SJC Builders Association, and one of the founding members of Citizens For Responsible Government, a not-for-profit & a non-partisan corporation

Interview With A "Friend"

This is the first of several interviews being conducted by In-The-Tank Rock Circle News. The goal is apparently to provide a community bridge of information, thoughts and opinion between the San Juan County government officialdom, local quasi-governmental environmental groups and the public. An advance copy of the first interview was sent to me and I thought it might be of interest to the readers of The Island Guardian.

How was the Eagle Forum’s community meeting Saturday night at Rosario on Orcas Island?
Good I guess, at least as community meetings go. Over 200 people attended. That is a lot for Orcas Island, especially with all the other things happening on Orcas that evening like Shakespeare at Orcas Center and a dance at the Odd-fellows Hall with a great band, the Orcas Horns. I drew the short straw so had to go to the community meeting.

What was the meeting about?
Mostly about the Critical Areas Ordinance the Council is writing.

Who were the speakers?
One was some well known land use lawyer, Sandy Mackie, another was the hydrogeologist, Ed Kilduff. He graduated from MIT and designs major environmental restoration projects for the Federal government like the Hanford project in eastern Washington. There was that former County Commissioner, John Evans. He spoke about what he thinks the draft CAO will do to the community. Then a guy from the Freedom Foundation, Glen Morgan spoke. He thinks private property rights are important. He told the audience property rights are mentioned somewhere in the United States Constitution. He said they are even mentioned in the Washington State Constitution and are one of the 14 goals in the Growth Management Act. I think I might have heard about that before.

How did the audience react?
Pretty supportive of the speakers, but not very supportive of the County Council’s draft Critical Areas Ordinance. The Council isn’t getting their message out. Or, the public doesn’t believe the Council knows what it is doing. I am not sure which.

What did you learn at the community meeting?
For starters, I learned some well qualified experts and many citizens really don’t understand what the County Council is doing.

The Council is just are not getting their message out as I said. The speakers at the community meeting said the Council isn’t required to do the CAO the way it is being done. I have to admit they are right about that. The State law does not actually require the Council to rewrite the existing Critical Areas Ordinance, but we think they should plow ahead anyway.

As for the public, they think the Council should represent them and the local community .... not the Department Ecology, the Friends of the San Juan’s or the species in the environment.

The public has a very selfish view about the importance of their homes, their property, the viability of local businesses and local jobs. They might claim that they care about a healthy environment, but it really is all about the money.

The public is not cooperating with the Council officials. I think citizens have a very old fashioned viewpoint about their rights, Constitutional law, their relationship with government officials and their homes.

Shouldn’t elected officials represent the folks who elected them?
The short answer is maybe. When the public is just simply wrong in their thinking, elected officials need to stand their ground and tell the citizens “what’s what and how it is going to be and when to salute.” Elected officials should apply their good judgement. The Council and the county staff planners know what is best ..... especially when the public obviously doesn’t know what is good for them. The public and the property owners are clueless.

Were the experts and the 200 plus Orcas citizens in attendance wrong?
Oh yes. Pretty much wrong and seriously misinformed. Most of the audience thought having their home declared a non-conforming use by the government is a problem.

They also think the County should have first defined an environmental problem before they crafted the regulations to solve the problem they have yet to identify. People don’t understand big no-go buffers on their property are essential.

The lead County planner has said non-conforming uses and defining the problem are really not important issues and we can “tweak” the regulations. Three County Council members and the staff are working behind closed doors doing the “tweaking” as we speak. Getting the public involved in “tweaking” would confuse the process. I am sure the other three Council members will go along with the “tweaks” even though they are not involved in what the “tweaks” are going to say.

The County has to get the new restrictions in place before the island’s environment collapses. The Department of Ecology and the local planners are getting very impatient with people who want homes, gardens and orchards on their property. What’s wrong with everything natural?

How did you and your Friends come to understand the issues when the public doesn’t?
We have a very close relationship with all the people involved in this. The lead county planner, the Department of Ecology in Olympia and the environmentalists we work with, have all said we have local problems even if they, or we, can not identify them. They should know. It is their, and our business, to know all this environmental stuff.

Our staff gets paid good salaries to know these things and lobby the local officials. Also, the existing ordinance did not include the Best Available Science. BAS is now required to be part of any Critical Areas Ordinance. That is a major problem with the current ordinance.

I have heard about that. I understand the Council hired a scientist from Eugene, Oregon, Dr. Paul Adamus to work up a list of the Best Available Science for San Juan County. How did he do?
He did a great job. He came highly recommended by the folks at the Department of Ecology. They really like the way he thinks.

Besides one fellow who now runs a restaurant and a bed and breakfast is on the Council and he used to be a scientist. As a science guy he knows about science and recommended Dr. Adamus. He is working closely with Dr. Adamus. I guess that is a bit off the track. At any rate, the Councilman/scientist and the rest of the Council thinks Adamus is great, as I said.

Dr. Adamus has done a lot of work that the Department of Ecology likes. The planners in Island County and the environmentalists over there are thrilled with the work he did for them. Did I mention Ecology likes him? He runs his ideas past DOE to make sure he and they are on the same page. DOE likes that relationship.

I understand Dr. Adamus has put a lot of faith in the Mayer studies he and the staff adopted as part of the local BAS?
Yes he has, and so have the County Council and the planners. The Mayer report shows that we maybe could might have real problems in San Juan County. Or, at least our planner and Dr. Adamus says it shows we have real things to be concerned about. The Mayer papers are the foundation of the 260 foot buffers for wetlands that the planning staff is recommending.

I thought that there was new information that the Mayer report papers actually show that most filtration of bad stuff in water occurs in the first 18 meters of a buffer, which is about 54 feet. After that the benefit of any additional buffer width is minimal at best. Why are you and the county staff supporting a 260 foot buffers that are 200 more feet wider than necessary?
The 18 meters may be part of the Mayer papers, but I and the Council think it really doesn't apply to San Juan County. After all, the 18 meters is referencing the level of filtration necessary when dealing with high-intensity industrial agriculture pollutants; we are dealing with pollutants from people living in houses. The two are very different.

Wouldn’t you expect pollutants from homes to be less serious than from industrial agriculture and feed lots and require even smaller buffers?
At first guess one would think so, but a local biologist on the Friends of the San Juan's Board used a cookie sheet to explain that much bigger buffers are required than what the Mayer science reports say. The Council thinks her cookie sheet example is much more compelling than the Mayer science papers. Dr. Adamus, the Department of Ecology staff and the County’s lead planner all agree.

It is only the public and the outside experts that are questioning the cookie sheet data or the Council’s need to exceed drinking water standards for surface water runoff.

So you think the County is pretty much geared to move ahead?
Yes, I see no reason why those we elected to the Council, people who intuitively know about environmental science than the experts, should listen to non-county approved experts or the public when making decisions. Once a council person has made up his or her mind on something, (and I agree with that position), they should stay the coarse.

But what if you learn you were wrong or maybe the data the elected officials used to make their decision was wrong?
The citizens can just sue the County. The joke is on them because the money they are paying in taxes will be paying the lawyers on our side.

This whole “listen to the public and serve the public interest” thing for elected officials is highly over rated. There are so many in the public who are not as knowledgeable as the Friends, the DOE, Dr, Adamus or the Council.

It is amazing to me how many folks in this community just don’t get the critical nature of the problem we might maybe could be trying to solve. Just look around. The environment is threatened at every turn. I already told you about the cookie sheet science. There is an environmental calamity ahead if we don’t take decisive action against San Juan County homeowners and workers, especially those that live near wetlands, streams or shorelines.

As I said before, the Council needs to do a much better job of getting it’s message out. If the public keeps inserting itself into the operations of their local government and ignores the knowledgeable local testimony from our organization, it will be more of a mess than it has already become.

Look at all the problems the Charles Dalton video and the Patty Miller/Council YOU TUBE has caused. People are starting to question what our Friends of the San Juan’s environmental non-profit is up to or why they should send us money. We are losing members! There are staff salaries to pay and a planet to save. This is a crisis!

We haven’t even gotten to wildlife habitat, sea-level rise, global warming or stopping runaway farming in wetlands. The Indians don’t have as many fish to catch as they want. The best outcome is for the public to stay quiet. The Friends and the Council will let them know what the new rules and regulations will be.

Two Of The Council Members Are Hard To Figure Out

Councilwomen Patty Miller grew up on Orcas. Many of her classmates and their families are still here. Most supported her election. These long time local folks, friends of hers and her family, are the same people who will be hardest hit by the CAO. Their businesses will suffer, working families will suffer, as will the old time property owners. They have all come to realize the damage that is headed their way.

They can’t figure out what in the world has happened to Patty. As a fellow old time islander, they can not figure out how she can be supporting the things that are being presented in the draft Critical Areas Ordinance.

Councilman Richard Fralick’s bona-fides may not be as “old island” as Ms. Millers, but he also ran as someone who could represent the real and valid interests of his neighbors and fellow islanders.

Most islanders realize the excuse the “State is requiring this” is not true. They want their local elected officials to stand up for their needs and what is right for this community.

If Council members Miller and Fralick can make a change of direction and support the local community, they will find the job of being a Council person is actually fun, emotionally rewarding and general enjoyable. They be viewed as a heroes by the vast majority of islanders; not as the go-for servants for a small elitist minority.

It is remarkable to attend a Council meeting in Friday Harbor, or one of the community meetings at the Orcas Fire Hall, and watch the Orcas Council members side with an agenda-driven County planner and one or two Friends Board members while stiffing the sincere concerns of the rest of the community in attendance.

This is not a situation where Council members have the unenviable job of delivering bad news or questionable policy from the Department of Ecology or some other State agency. GMA is a bottoms up planning process where local conditions are expected to be presented and defended. The DOE may have a different view of what the County should do. The County’s answer should be, so what?

Under the rules of the Growth Management Act, State agencies can appeal local decisions just as any citizen or group can do. If the County maintains its’ composure, has a justifiable position and is meeting the overall goals of GMA, the Growth Hearings Board and the courts will give wide latitude to local decisions that are passed by the local elected officials. This has proved true time and again.

The often quoted phrase from the Growth Hearings Board is simply, “show your work.” The County is fully capable of creating a solid record that supports a far different approach than what the agenda-driven county planning department and the Friends has created.

The “Best Available Science” does not support the County’s current proposal. The Council has to know that, or they are really out of touch.

The Orcas Council representatives are decent individuals, and probably smart in many ways, but If they want to be part of this community now and in the future they need to “dance with the ones that brought them.” The ones who “brought them” are the legions of old time island family members, working families and local property owners who thought they were choosing someone to represent their needs and interests.

If these two Council members think the Friends will fill their dance card, they will be spending a lot of time standing along the wall while the long-time islanders and the rest of the local community are giving them the cold shoulder.

To the Friends and fellow travelers, the two office holders are simply a useful tool to serve their agenda and business model until they find another useful tool to embrace the next manufactured environmental crisis the Friends gin up.

The View From Under The Bus

Toward the end of the Tuesday Feb. 28th Council meeting, Councilman Peterson reported that over 65 people attended his council district public meeting. He stated they were nearly unanimous in their condemnation of what the Council was doing to them and their property with the new the CAO/Shoreline rules and restrictions.

Councilman Peterson reported that, “They feel threatened ..... that something they have worked hard for all their lives is at risk. One guy is involved with the shoreline inventory the Friends did. Now it has come back to bite him. He feels like he is being had.”

In the short discussion that followed, Councilman Rosenfeld commented that those in the public raising concerns are giving the public false information.

Councilman Fralick stated that it is hard to watch the level of fear and angst and that the ” The public doesn’t understand what we are doing or why we are doing it.”

Councilwomen Miller says, she is very disturbed that “People think we are throwing them under the bus. Maybe we are finally hearing from the silent majority.”

In a jaw-dropping stunning example of missing the forest for the trees, the Council members agreed that the problem must be that they, the Council, have been ineffective in getting their message out.

The Council members can’t seem to grasp that the public just isn’t buying what they are selling.

The issue is the message itself, not how the message is delivered. Citizens want our Council to represent our community, our citizens, our property owners. The public does not want our representatives to be sock puppets for the extreme agenda of the Friends and the Department of Ecology.

The simple truth is that the law requires critical areas to be protected.

That said, the law allows the Council the legal latitude to identify and adopt rules that reflect local environmental, social and economic circumstances:

WAC 365-195-915 (c), Any nonscientific information -- including legal, social, cultural, economic, and political information -- used as a basis for critical area policies and regulations that depart from recommendations derived from the best available science. A county or city departing from science-based recommendations should:

(i) Identify the information in the record that supports its decision to depart from science-based recommendations;

(ii) Explain its rationale for departing from science-based recommendations; and

(iii) Identify potential risks to the functions and values of the critical area or areas at issue and any additional measures chosen to limit such risks. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review often provides an opportunity to establish and publish the record of this assessment.

The prior Council should have reviewed the existing critical areas ordinance as the law requires, clearly identified if a threat exists to our critical areas and evaluate honestly whether the current rules are adequate for protecting those critical areas.

This has never done in a peer-reviewed scientifically credible manner. Time and again the Council has been asked to “show us the problem.” The obvious short answer is that the current rules are doing their job.

Local citizens know that the current rules are protecting our critical areas. The Council has failed to consider and tailor the CAO draft to the real environmental conditions in San Juan County. People are angry, afraid, frustrated, upset ..... and in a word: pissed!

The problem is not the Councils failure to communicate. The problem is the message and actions being taken by our County Council. The real problem the Council currently faces is that the “silent majority” now realizes that, yes, the Council is, in fact, “throwing them under the bus. ”

The actions of the Council are clear for all to see; San Juan county citizens are being sold down the river. The silent majority doesn’t like it one bit and is letting the Council members know how they feel!

If the Council members are uncomfortable with how their imperial posture is being received by the public, they should realize that this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. They have the option to support the citizens, change the public perception of how they are doing their jobs and resolve this issue that is tearing our community apart.

Lets hope they do.

Really?

After 20 plus years of participating in County government, starting a long time ago as Chairman of the Fair Board, then 12 years as a County Commissioner, and lately as a member of the Citizen Advisory Committee on the draft Critical Areas Ordinance, I didn't think there was much that could come out of the Friday Harbor Court House that would surprise me.

Guess what?

The County Council, on a 5-1 vote, has preliminarily passed the Draft CAO General Section. Approval comes when the wetlands and wildlife sections of the CAO are finished in the next month or two.

If you think that “Evans has finally lost his mind,” I invite you to go to the Common Sense Alliance web site which has a more detailed explanation of what this is all about. There is also a YouTube link to a video of the County Council testimony on the subject. In the General Section (.pdf 558\k file), the written material on stating the requirements is on pages 28 and 29. Beyond pages 28 and 29 the whole Ordinance should get folks attention.

The General Section of the CAO includes a requirement that any property-owner activity, that will disturb any dirt or vegetation on their property, first get the approval of the County's Community Development and Planning Department. The County wants to be sure that any such activity is beyond 300 feet from any of their designated wetlands, streams or 200 feet from other Critical Areas.

After the County has checked their maps -and maybe stopped by for a site visit- and if you are beyond the 200/300 foot regulatory "trip wire," they will give you the go-ahead.

If, on the other hand, you are closer than 300 feet you will need to participate in the County's Critical Areas Review process.

The process may include hiring an expert to do a wetlands or stream delineation, a biologist to assess any presence of flora and fauna species of concern, a surveyor to measure distances for the prescribed critical area buffers; and mitigation performance bonds posted, and conditions attached to the legal title of the property.

This requirement is not just for someone trying to build a home on bare land. This is for all property owners. The final Ordinance will designate Critical Area buffer overlays on many of the islands already developed parcels.

It seems to me that the ability to cut firewood, trim vegetation, plant a garden or even plant some fruit trees is part of what living in San Juan County is all about. Being required to get the County's permission to do even the most modest activities on one's property is crazy.

Even crazier is granting local government officials, (or any government officials) such authority over the daily lives of citizens, their homes and families.

Actions Have Consequences

With a four to two vote, today, January 10th 2012, the San Juan County Council opted into the Ruckelshaus Voluntary Stewardship Program (Related Story) consistent with HSHB 1886. (Councilman Fralick and Peterson voted no.) Just as when the County opted into the original Growth Management Act in the early 1990’s, this program is likely to be another expensive State “gift that just keeps giving” with local citizens left holding the bag.

How is it that the County Council and their planning staff are most willing to promote the “precautionary principle” when restricting the use of private land by property owners, yet show no sense of precaution when obligating the citizens of the County to submit to a State, Tribes and environmentalist-run regulatory scheme?

Somehow, under the guidance of Councilwomen Pratt, the Council managed to talk themselves over, under, around and past the recommendations of the County Prosecutor Randy Gaylord's initial advise that the County would not be able to opt out of the program prior to the three year "off ramp."

It was his advise, based on the wording of HSHB 1886 that the Council should not sign up for this program with the idea that the County might be able to opt out by simply not "acknowledging" receipt of funding adequate to support the program.

Prosecutor Gaylord, as the Council’s attorney and legal adviser, also noted the important element of the Voluntary Stewardship Program which gives the State, not the County Council or any local body accountable to the citizens of the County, final authority over the State’s Stewardship Program and it’s implementation.

As the old saying goes, elections have consequences.

Non-conforming Logic

The County Council is so excited about the new Critical Area regulations their land use planners are writing they have decided to apply a similar rewrite to the County’s road rules.

The existing system of speed limits and sheriff deputy enforcement just is not working to the Council’s satisfaction. The Council notes that some people still drive too fast and sometimes there are accidents.

“Priority earth-wise” road users such as walkers and bike riders are complaining that they are uncomfortable with the cars and trucks using the roadways. Additionally they note that roads can cross salmon streams and approach shorelines where surf smelt are mating and laying eggs. Uncontrolled traffic on roads can affect endangered salmon and forage fish which in turn can affect the endangered Orca whales. The Council has listened intently and is poised for action.

The Council’s response is to propose new road rules that are patterned closely on their pending San Juan County land use Critical Areas Ordinance.

For starters, all “//cars and trucks will be declared non-conforming//.” (eco-friendly electric vehicles are exempt.) This particular requirement has nothing to do with road safety but is to satisfy the Council’s urge to be as green as possible.

By Council edict, the now non-conforming vehicle owners will be required to comply with the new county permitting process in order to use the Council’s roads.

The Council and the planners claim the new non-conforming vehicle status is no big deal. Vehicle owners can still do routine maintenance without a County permit. If, however, the owner wants to install a ski rack or change the tires there will be a permitting review process to follow. Permits should be issued in as little as six months. Permit fees are yet to be determined.

To address the road safety issue, there will be a new “//basic speed limit ‘buffer’ of 10 miles per hour//” on all County roads. This “speed buffer’ is to protect the public from vehicles, that left unrestricted, might cause uncontrolled mayhem. The new speed limit also satisfies the precautionary bent of the Council’s Friends earth-wise road users. The argument from the environment-first folks is that slower travel speeds will mean that insects and wildlife of local concern are less likely to have a bad interaction with a vehicle.

As a “//mitigation measure//” for the 10 mph speed “buffer” the Council has told the planners to set up a county-administered variable speed limit system based on the road width, proximity to roadside trees, road slope and condition of the chip seal road surface, daytime vs. night time use and likely rain or snow conditions.

If a driver is ticketed and fined by the code enforcement police they are considered guilty unless they file an appeal, hire a lawyer and a court says otherwise. In court the driver will have to prove, (using the County’s Best Available Science for roads), that they were in fact driving in compliance with the new variable road rules. As an added measure, drivers of trucks will be required to post a “cash performance bond” with the County.

To be permitted to use county roads, drivers will be subject to a county review and permitting process.

The vehicles weight and fuel consumption will be calculated in the permitting process as well as the drivers experience, age and travel distance from the owners residence to the ferry terminal.

The car owner will be required to hire engineers to evaluate the brake linings, hydraulic fluids and road clearance. If everything checks out and the proper county permit fees are paid, the island vehicle owner may be granted a “reasonable use variance” to use the roads.

A number of local citizens and business groups and one Council member have explained this program is not a good idea. The earth-Friends folks counter that any criticism of the Council’s majorities proposal is merely “//an expression of greed and unreasonable self interest by vehicle owners, local businesses and employers.//”

Okay, poking fun at how silly things could get may be good for a chuckle, but what the Council is doing with the Critical Areas Ordinance for land use is no laughing matter.

The Council appears to believe that inadequate regulation and government oversight of people living in their own homes on their own land (or using the roads) is causing irreparable harm to the San Juan Island’s natural environment; no data, just a hunch.

Apparently the Council believes they should follow the precautionary principle and solve ‘could be problems’ before said problems are identified! The rest of the San Juan County GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan- from jobs and housing to property rights and resources- are merely footnotes to the Council’s environmental regulation push.

Thoughts About Farms

The recent news about the Jones Family Farm got me thinking about ducks...and farms.

There is the phrase, "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a duck!" So far so good, but the realm of public policy, "There are ducks and then there are ducks."

All ducks are not treated the same .... for good reason. Garden-variety ducks don't get any special attention. They do duck stuff and seem to get along pretty well. Other ducks, for complex reasons, are rare. Rare, special or important ducks need and get special treatment from regulators. They are protected from hunters. They have special protections for nesting sites and feeding areas. There is the common sense realization that absent a special effort, the rare ducks could join the passenger pigeon in the history books.

Different rules based on special circumstances apply in many other public policy regulatory areas including how we treat various activities in our community. Farms and farmers are treated differently because the general community believes farms are becoming increasingly rare. Legislators and regulators consider farms important for a host of reasons. Policy makers have believed farming needs special consideration if farming activity is to be part of our community in the future. As a business, farms may "walk like a duck and quack like a duck" but, in the islands, farms and farmers are in danger of becoming a "rare duck."

Historically islanders have recognized that support for farming activities provides open space, rural vistas, habitat for a wide variety of native bird and animal species, not to mention good fresh food and locally produced food. All are valued public benefits. Hobby farms provide the afore mentioned benefits, as well as family experience for our youngest citizens, such as 4H and the independence of home grown food and a way of life for many older citizens.

The recent County enforcement activities affecting the Jones farm and food marketing activities on Lopez is a marked change from past policies. Classification of a 200 square foot building that offers self-serve local food products to the public as a (Class M use) can open a host of regulation compliance issues; issues that a small farm cannot financially afford to meet. Even the proposed $109 permit fee alone represents sales of over $1,000 in products if the farm nets 10% on the items they sell. $1,000 is a lot of lettuce or lamb.

It appears likely the 200 square foot Jones farm stand will be closing. This reminds one of the egg sale misstep by the County some years ago or the effort of officials somewhere to close down a child's lemonade stand.

If we want farms, farms stands (or rare ducks) it is up to local officials to use some judgment and discretion about how general rules are applied. Local officials, declaring open season on farm stands, and by extension any home occupation, or cottage industry that serves the public, is not in our community's best interest. We can do better.