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.

(John B Evans is a columnist for the Guardian, farmer and nurseryman in Doe Bay; a County Commissioner for 12 years; past 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)

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.

Working With What Works

On Wednesday, August 10th, the San Juan County Planning Commission began deliberations of the General Section of the new draft Critical Areas Ordinance. The Planning Commission members deserve a lot of credit. They are chosen by the Council to represent the interest of the County’s citizens on planning issues and to review the work of the County’s staff planners before forwarding the Planning Commission’s recommendations to the Council for their deliberations. It is a daunting task to sort out the pros and cons of the various options being promoted by staff, various interest groups and average citizens.

It is encouraging that a majority on the Planning Commission worked through conflicting comments and voted to maintain the current “reasonable use” exemption that has been part of the current Comprehensive Plan and UDC for over 10 years.

Reasonable use applies when a property is so encumbered by environmental restrictions there is essentially no beneficial use that can be permitted and still comply with the environmental rules. The allowance for reasonable use is a requirement so the government is not legally liable for a “takings.”

Under the current plan, a property owner is allowed to build a home and use up to 1/2 acre of his land or 80% of the area, whichever was smaller. The existing rule was adopted as part of the GMA/compliant Comprehensive Plan after an extensive public process and compromise.

The proposal being put forward in the draft Critical Areas Ordinance reduced the 1/2 acre to just over 5,000 total square feet; an area so small that a home, driveway, garage, septic system and septic recovery area could hardly be built, much less leave the owner with any yard to enjoy; reasonable would become unreasonable. It imposes an intense urban level of density on rural land.

According to the County staff, County-wide the number of parcels that would be eligible for the reasonable 1/2 acre or 80% use exemption is small. The environmental affect is likewise small. There is no compelling environmental need or legal requirement to create this additional hardship on a very small number of our neighbors.

Year after year the Land Bank and the Preservation Trust have been buying critical area lands or purchasing restrictive easements on private lands with critical areas. The net affect is that thousands of acres of rural lands with critical area habitat and features have been and are being protected. The County is experiencing a net gain, far above GMA requirements, in lands protected from future development, offsetting any arguments about a possible legal challenge based on the State’s no net loss of critical areas requirement.

John B Evans is a Columnist for the Guardian, Farmer and nurseryman in Doe Bay, County Commissioner for 12 years, past 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

Control

Martha really likes to be in control; not just a little, but really in control. She also has a very active imagination, so insists on all types of precautions whatever the upcoming project entails.

Martha also suffers from tunnel vision. She can not anticipate the fallout from her precautionary instructions to whomever is in her sights at the time. Fearful her husband would fall off the roof when cleaning the chimney she retied the safety rope her husband had already installed to a railing ... with a sturdier knot to the heavy bumper on the car .... and then forgot and drove off to the store. Her husband is hoping to get out of the hospital later this month.

Martha’s child John is not very active. He has found it a heck of a lot easier to not do any activities than to deal with all the rules Martha would puts forward.

Martha has written a notebook full of rules and regulations covering everything from driving the car, to cooking in the kitchen to doing yard work. She insists the rules be followed even though the statistical chance of one of the otherwise routine activities going south was right up there with being hit by a comet.

As an example, her son John is supposed to mow the lawn. The preparation to get ready to start mowing took over an hour: fueling the mower required special gloves and goggles, a special breathing mask, a fire extinguisher, and could only be done in the special spill containment area she had insisted on. Starting the mower and actually cutting the grass required protective gear similar to what might be worn when operating a chain saw. She also insisted on a bee keeper’s head dress due to her concern about yellow jackets, leather leggings in case the mower kicked up a stone, and shatter proof eye protection.

All the heavy gear was hot to wear .... like, really hot .... so John had to wear a kitchen timer that went off every 10 minutes at which time he was to shut off the mower, sit in the shade and drink exactly 2 pints of water. Any variation from the stated rules required written approval, testimony from recognized mower experts and an approved mitigation plan.

In this neighborhood most of the lawns were about the same size. All the neighbors generally take less than an hour to mow their lawns and then move on to other activities. Poor John is at it for 7 hours on a good day. When neighbors commented, Martha’s answer was always the same : “precautions are critical .... one can not be too careful.” She could recite chapter and verse the science that reported the one in a million occurrences of a mishap. She kept photocopies of the relative “science” in the notebook.

Martha’s influence is waning.

He husband has been heard to say that he is going to get her into a 12 step program as soon as he gets home from the hospital. The son John is headed off to college -in Australia- which is about as far away as he can get from his cautionary mother.

Outside the home front, Martha is doing well. She currently is in charge of the Thurston County Critical Area Rodent Habitat Protection Plan where she is focused on 3-toed-moles with a secondary emphasis on what a student scientist from Evergreen College claims are genetically unique voles and what a “citizen scientist” claims are squirrels with exceptionally long tails. Her precautionary approach and resulting buffers and land use restrictions have the rural Thurston County soon-to-be nonconforming use homeowners up in arms.

Her ability to embrace junk science and stay the coarse in the face of all logic and common sense has caught the attention of the Department of Ecology. It is not every day the agency finds a potential staff director who thrives on control and authority over others, blindly and without question follows directives and predetermined political agendas, and seems to thrive on doing the opposite of what the general public expects. Ecology is actively recruiting her to be in charge of reviewing and not approving the Shoreline Master Programs submitted by the State’s cities and counties.

It is possible Martha will be attending future meetings on the San Juan County Critical Areas workshops in Friday Harbor. The Department of Ecology and the local environmental activist groups feel her experience and unique talent will be invaluable for guiding the County Council and the Planning Commission.

A Cultural Shift

Some thoughts on the well written column by Christopher Laws, “Knowing Your Audience.” It is sad but true that abusive and outrageous behavior is becoming more routine in political expression.

There seems to be a cultural shift taking place. Movies compete to see which one can be more outrageous, graphic or violent. Reality TV promotes the lowest common denominator. The audience for this garbage seems to be growing.

In schools teachers and administrators have greatly lowered standards for behavior expected of students, to a point where learning suffers. In schools, business, government, or relationships, the basic standards of honor, truth, personal responsibility, integrity, cooperation, generosity, are becoming terms that sound old fashioned.

As to Wisconsin, the damage that the missing Democrat Senators have done to the integrity of the process of representative government is hard to justify; no matter how strongly they feel about their position. If it becomes acceptable to simply grab the game ball and leave when your side is not winning on a vote, our system of governance is in very big trouble.

Unions often play a very constructive role, giving individual workers meaningful representation in the work environment. Just as unrestrained employers can take advantage of employees, overreaching unions can create unsustainable conditions for employers and governments.

Unfortunately the public sector Wisconsin union bosses had successfully negotiated benefits and perks that were not financially sustainable within any logical State budget or taxing scenarios. As State budgets have imploded, voters have begun to wake up. Voters no longer support public employee benefits that are far beyond those enjoyed by private sector taxpayers.

The special benefits for some Washington State ferry employees are a local example where some agreements made through union/State negotiations just could not pass the smell test. Local investigative news media won awards for reporting on the worst of the abuses of the public purse strings. Some unions have clearly shown they are not immune from taking advantage and demanding more than is fair or sustainable. Bad behavior is not restricted to corporations or other employers.

I have to think we would all be much better off if we demanded that political folks, schools, the media, unions and our communities dust off some of the old fashioned standards of civilized behavior. There is room for improvement.

Enviro Employment

Environmental activism is a thriving business. A simple Google search for Washington State environmental groups turns up a web site that list over 100, largely non-profit or non-governmental (NGO) environmental organizations.

Several of these organizations are active and lobbying hard in San Juan County; The Friends of the San Juans, the Marine Resources Committee, San Juan County Lead Entity for Salmon Recovery, and People for Puget Sound. Additional organizations include the governor’s Puget Sound Partnership (PSP) and offshoots of the (PSP) such as the San Juan Initiative. Most rely on taxpayer funding.

* The Friends of the San Juans lists 6 employees on their web page: Executive Director; a Science Director; Development Director; Staff Attorney; Office Manager, and a GIS consultant.

* The San Juan County Marine Resources Committee lists 4 staff people; but not their titles.

* San Juan County Lead Entity for Salmon Recovery lists 3 staff positions.

* The People for Puget Sound lists a Director and 30 staff positions.

In addition to the non-profits and NGO’s, various County, State and Federal agencies employ thousands of bureaucrats, many of whom routinely work, at tax payer expense, with the non-profit and NGO groups to lobby elected officials for new rules and restrictions on citizens and private land owners.

Locally, the principle mission of all of these groups is to lobby and persuade County elected officials that unless new government regulations and restrictions are imposed on citizens and private property, the island’s natural environment is threatened or doomed. Forecasting impending doom on the one hand, while promising salvation through persuasive lobbying for new regulations on the other, is what keeps the money rolling in to fund these groups.

Each organization has a financial bottom line. Environmental activism doesn’t come cheap; salaries for staff, directors, lobbyists. as well as offices and administrative overhead add up quickly. Additionally, some groups pay scientists and consultants to validate their organization’s particular agendas. Some pay lawyers to sue citizens or local governments; which also costs the tax payer.

The non-profits raise their money through private donations, foundation grants, and of course government earmarks. The NGO’s generally live on public money; various government grants or, like the MRC, are part of government’s regular budget allocations. The government agencies and their lobbying activities are fully funded by taxpayers.

So here is the rub.

San Juan County island’s ecosystem is healthy. The limited impacts of our largely rural development are well regulated. The County’s marine waters are considered pristine by the State. This then begs the question: why are elected officials responding to and funding all these environmental lobbyists?

County complicity is costing taxpayers a bundle. A controversial BAS (Best Available Science) report will be discussed in Friday Harbor (February 8th and 9th, 2011). Over $100,000 just for a report on Best Available Science, and that is just a down payment. More hundreds of thousands of dollars will be spent as the Critical Areas and Shoreline process proceeds forward.

The activists and lobbyists know a good deal; (the taxpayer’s goose lays golden eggs), and want to keep the good times rolling. Unless elected officials start applying the brakes to the environmental lobbyist’s gravy train these groups will be back next year, and the year after, with more demands.

The simple fact is that no amount of review, altering and increasing Critical Area or Shoreline regulation in San Juan County will ever be enough for those groups who receive their funding as a result of it.

The environmental lobby’s business model requires an ongoing crisis. If they don’t keep the pot boiling, the flow of money stops. The Council could review the existing regulations, recognize the high quality of our island’s environment and say: “We will keep the rules we have .... end of story,” .... and an end of the financial bleeding. Maybe they will.