Island Guardian

Tuesday, February 22nd

Re: Breaking News Story in San Juan County

When our founding fathers were debating the form and substance of a new government the issue of "rights" was a paramount concern. Little noticed today was the question of whether rights should be defined prior to writing a constitution – whether "rights came first." Although our constitution was written without reference to specific rights, its adoption was conditioned upon adoption of ten amendments that are today called The Bill of Rights.

Certain rights were universally believed to be "inalienable." We take this term for granted for life, liberty, speech, religion and press. The initial bill of rights (Virginia's, adopted June 12, 1776) included "acquiring and possessing property." The full sentence: "That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

Subsequent experience has amply demonstrated that liberty is not possible without corresponding protections for property rights. Put another way, diminishment of property rights is a diminishment of freedom. Since speech, religion and press are more a less a matter of opinion or conscience it is difficult to control or deny them by the state's usual tools (execution, jail, taxation, regulation); and most enlightened societies leave these rights relatively unencumbered. The "means of acquiring and possessing property," on the other hand is often abused.

Here in San Juan County, the use and possession of real estate has been under continuing attack. A common occurrence is that several land owners each purchase a lot and one immediately builds a house. Some years later this home owner decides that further "growth" is destroying the character of the islands that he so loves. So he and his political buddies get the county government to put in place a policy of "reigning in growth" and seek to deny his neighbors the right to build on their lots. There has even been widespread talk to the effect that "we" cannot "afford" to let homes be built on each of the existing undeveloped parcels of land (as otherwise allowed in our GMA comprehensive plan). And the election of Alan Lichter has given credibility to the notion of restricting the floor area of new construction (that would have prohibited the house that we now call Rosario).

These anti-property sentiments are anti-liberty. They are, though, routinely accepted in Aspen and Nantucket; and for this reason alone, we ought to avoid them. The character of a community is rightly the concern of all of the community's citizens. And the natural environment is certainly important. But a community is defined by many attributes. Aspen and Nantucket are thought of as elite, very costly to live in and otherwise as overly gentrified – and nothing about these communities can be characterized as environmentally friendly. It is quite astounding that the protect-the-environment crowd is so quick to call for implementation of any growth management technique used in either of these communities.

Suspension or restriction of property development rights without just compensation might be beneficial to the environment at the margin – but the offense to fundamental principals of liberty is almost beyond evaluation. It is very troubling to realize that so many islanders seem willing to suspend their neighbors' property rights. The choice should not be between the environment and property rights, but rather the cost that we are prepared to shoulder – and especially whether that cost will be borne by all or just those that have not yet improved their property.

Albert B. Hall
Friday Harbor
360-378-6697

[more..]

Sunday, February 13th

Miller has it backward: it is the people that empower the government.

The comments that Commissioner Miller made on February 5th at the Freeholder's meeting regarding government are greatly disturbing to me, and should be to every citizen and taxpayer in our County. Miller stated that "The purpose of government is to empower people…". If I am not mistaken, Miller has it backward: it is the people that empower the government. Our form of government is not dictatorial, communist or socialist, but a democracy where the people empower government.

Our Commissioner also stated that "Government is not efficient, nor is it intended to be. Government is designed to be slow, inefficient, and contain redundancy". Why can't government be efficient? Just because it is the taxpayers' money government is spending does not mean that it must operate in an inefficient manner. With good leadership, experienced people with management, administrative, finance and economic backgrounds, our County does not need to operate inefficiently. Perhaps we now have an insight to the source of the problems facing County government, for if Commissioner Miller is conducting her job with the intention of making government inefficient, she is right on the mark when she stated that, "The quality of government is directly related to the quality of the people who serve in governmental positions".

We as citizens and taxpayers must demand that our government officials spend our tax dollars and their time as efficiently and judiciously as possible and it is our will that they are mandated to carry out, not their personal agendas.

Ray Bigler

[more..]

Saturday, February 12th

WSF. Who Can Blame Them? I Do!

To all decision makers regarding the Washington State Ferry System

On March 2nd we, in the San Juan Islands, will be addressing our concerns regarding proposed changes to our sole physical connection with the mainland.

I can't help but feel we will be addressing our concerns to fellow victims of the Legislature. Washington State Ferries (WSF) are proposing these changes because of lack of funding by the Legislature. Hence, the system is a fellow victim. The Legislature has been hiding behind the skirts of the Transportation Commission and the Department of Transportation for far too many years. Today, we are suffering from the lowest level of service, in the San Juans, than at any time in my 22 years of residency in the Islands. Our fleet reflects, visually, the lack of maintenance in the fleet. We experience mechanical problems on a regular basis. There is no food service available.

The question becomes: How far are we going to let one of the top tourist attractions in Washington State, and our only means of getting home, or away from home, deteriorate? As a result of the neglect of the System, the Management is now proposing a ridiculous method to raise the fares so that they can keep the System solvent. Who can blame them? I do!

The proposed electronic card idea is certainly not a bad idea. However the plan of implementing the plan is not in the best interest of the System, or the people they serve. Declining ridership cannot be fixed by raising fares. Those of us in the Islands have pretty much accepted the 5+5+5 plan as necessary. The ride equity plan has not met much resistance. However, even with these plans in place it will cost over $80.00 for a family of four to come to Friday Harbor this Summer. It is my feeling ridership will continue to decline. In the long run there is nothing gained.

Now comes a plan for electronic cards. These cards can be programmed any way the system determines. The proposed way is to remove the 25% ninety day discount of the commuter books, and replace it with a thirty day 25% discount and a 15% ninety day discount. This proposal is not acceptable. In many cases families will alternate shopping trips, thereby reducing ridership.

I offer an alterative. The card could be purchased for a minimum of $100.00. Larger amounts could be made available in any amount the rider wishes to pay. The cards would be good for ninety days. The cards should reflect a 20% discount for all fares, excluding the senior and handicapped fares.
The card would be presented at the toll booth and swiped to include the proper amount for whatever is required. Once the card is purchased it belongs to the purchaser. The purchaser should be able to use the card in any fashion he, or she, wishes. Since the trip is already paid for it is none of WSF's business how the owner wishes to spend the credit on the card. The owner of the card has purchased a designated dollar amount of service from WSF. The service obtained should be at the discretion of the card owner.

The above proposal is simple and workable. It provides an increase of 5% over today's fares and seems to be a reasonable compromise. WSF has indicated that some commercial rates will be decreased so that they are more in line with regional rates. Is that to say the non-commercial rates will be increased because there is no competition?

WSF is expanding the "Surcharge" season. Yet the "Surcharge" season does not correspond with the schedules. It seems to me that the "Surcharge" season should correspond with the summer schedule. That is when operating expenses increase.

One more point. Why are the ferries, owned by WSDOT, that cross the Columbia River in Eastern Washington free?

Sincerely,

Wm. J. LaPorte
bill@rockisland.com

[more..]