Island Guardian

Saturday, April 29th

Reader Commends The Island Guardian

Maybe I am not the first, but I do commend you on your efforts in letting the public know of the very important issues before them.

I feel I can learn more from your "Island Guardian" than from any other news source. After all, we know the "Journal" doesn't have what it takes to inform the public. You are above all the others! Please keep up the good work!

Thanks

Daryl R. Boulton
Roche Harbor

[more..]

National Teacher Appreciation Week

Dear Editor:

In our polarized nation, where so many of us interact only with those
who think as we do, our public schools remain one of the few places
where America's gorgeous mosaic is still fresh and vital. At Friday
Harbor High School, our teachers and staff educate everyone, no
matter their ethnicity, political orientation, economic background,
religious affiliation or social standing. And not just any education:
Friday Harbor High School is the most outstanding small school in the
state. Our teachers and staff make it that way.

May 7-13 is National Teacher Appreciation Week. Please join the Board
of the Friday Harbor High School PTSA in expressing our gratitude to
those who help our children grow into the next generation of adults.
Thank you, FHHS teachers and staff, for all that you do.

The PTSA offers special thanks to retiring principal Marilyn Luckman,
who has done so much to make Friday Harbor High School shine.

Sincerely,

Bryn Barnard, President
Lisa Brown Vice President
Cathy Cavanagh, Treasurer
Cathy Youngbuck, Secretary
Deborah Nolan, Volunteer Coordinator
Sonia Nash, Membership Coordinator
Kathy Nelson, Honor Roll Coordinator
Kate Schuman, Senior Parent Liaison
Sarah Anderson, Student Liaison

Friday Harbor High School PTSA

[more..]

LETTERS ABOUT THE GUEST HOUSE ISSUE

---------------------------------------------
Former SJC Planner Weights In On ADUs

To the Editor:

I have watched, from afar, the amazing amount of effort and words that have been generated in regards to guest houses. What has impressed me the most is the almost total lack of discussion about the core issue.

As we all know, the county currently has an agreement with the Growth Hearings Board and the courts which allows detached guest houses in resource lands if they are for the use of resource workers. It is also acceptable to have "attached or internal" guest houses of less than 1,000 sq. ft. associated with single-family residences. These allowances were granted on the basis of evidence and assumptions adequate to conclude that the density in rural lands would not exceed the state-mandated maximum average of one unit per five acres. However, the courts and the Hearings Board were very clear that San Juan County had not presented evidence sufficient to show that detached guest houses associated with non-resource related residential properties would be used only occasionally, and therefore not contribute to an increase in density.

Let me say that again: San Juan County failed to convince the courts and the Hearings Board that detached guest houses would not contribute to an increase in density.

Now, I am slightly deaf due to years in the shipyards and other heavy construction sites, but I have not yet heard any significant discussion about this issue. Instead, I have heard huge amounts of noise - similar to a radio or TV after the station has gone off the air. Buzz, buzz, buzz - about the will of the people, compromises between warring factions, finish the lawsuit, and so on. At no time, that I am aware of, was there an effort to prepare a succinct analysis of how to convince the final authority – the GHB – that a detached guest house will be

"an accessory dwelling unit that is not rented, but is designed and most commonly used for irregular residential occupancy by family members, guests, and persons providing health care or property maintenance for the owner. (SJCC 18.20.070(G))"

This is not a matter of putting words on paper that say this in multiple different ways. At the least, I suppose, there has to be research, analysis, and a convincing enforcement proposal.

Or, if the will of the people is that there should be 2nd residences on, for example, a limited number of rural parcels, the county must prepare a growth impact analysis. That was requested in the past, but the response of the then BOCC was "we're special and we won't do it." Is that the attitude still? Why isn't an impact analysis being requested now? Is this station off the air, like our local FM station? If so, for how much longer?

Bob Querry
Friday Harbor
[more..]

Friday, April 28th

LETTERS AGAINST THE EXCISE TAX

New Two News Letters to Editor
Dear Editor:

To your readers: Do not read this if you are FOR, or AGAINST, Affordable Housing

Confused? You should be.

Each side of the argument has some agenda, open or hidden, whether they admit it or not(most likely most will not admit it).

Each side is passionate, to a point of blindness.

Have I upset both groups yet? More to follow.

No matter what I say, or whom chooses to listen, another group or individual will find a typo in my thinking and most certainly my humble thoughts will NOT change anyone's mind at this point.

I say Vote YES FOR Affordable Housing, BUT PLEASE Vote NO, the way it is being currently presented to target home or property buyers ONLY, with some smidgen paid by property sellers.

If you are neither buying, nor selling a piece of property, you do not contribute, except to ONLY the debate.

If, for example, 450 properties are sold in San Juan County, then ONLY 450 purchases are funding affordable housing. Does that seem fair or make any sense? What happens to the others in the county that neither buy, nor sell their dirt or dirt with a home on it this year? What if no one bought, nor sold property for a year, even unlikely as that is, what benefit then occurs to accumulate funds for a worthy cause?

This tax is targeted toward only a few to bear the burden and that should be opposed on theory alone.

If we truly wish to participate as a community or county, with everyone adding their real two cents, not with words, but with real Lincoln pennies, then why don't we all, 100% of us, contribute, not just zing the cost at a small percentage of buyers?

Call me crazy, but isn't it better to ask for a little from everyone, than a lot from a few?

"Welcome all property buyers to San Juan County...Pay Here (First) before you are allowed to live here."

I think a .01 percent added to sales tax collected (not 1%, rather one-tenth of one percent) could accumulate more funds, painlessly for everyone. Even visitors to the island, upon purchasing goods and services would be contributing slightly to this worthy cause, and the difference on a $10.00 purchase is one penny collected per $10.00 of taxable goods sold.

If our sales tax is 7.9%, make it an even 8.0%. The tax is not on food at the grocery, but yes, on sneakers or other items, that is, if we actually stay and buy on island instead of visiting the big box stores on the mainland.

Consider how a constant drop of water can fill a bucket versus turning on the faucet in one big splash. Or in my analogy, if the sales tax can be ever so slightly adjusted (and kept that way), it would probably gather more funds, and be painless for the majority, not just spear chucked at a minority. One tenth of one percent added to all purchases from residents and visitors would be more funds raised, by far more participants than by targeting the one group that has been selected (AKA property buyers) to fund this cause.

I support Affordable Housing, but I just CANNOT support the method that is currently being presented to the voters.

There is a BETTER solution that can be fair and equitable to those that can contribute, and those that receive the benefit.

Please VOTE NO on the one method being presented, but VOTE YES to find a better affordable housing solution.

There is a better way than the one being presented.

The sky really will not fall if you vote no for this one May 16 th vote.

In fact, the sky is the limit if a more fair and equitable method is created for EVERYONE TO PARTICIPATE.

Vote Yes for the Affordable Housing concept in your heart, but please VOTE NO for this one highly targeted and unfair proposal Tuesday.

Jim Carroll
San Juan Island
---------------------------
Vote NO!

Tomorrow, May 16 is Election Day for the ballot measure that proposes to increase the excise tax that would be paid on the purchase of property in San Juan County. If you have not yet voted in this important vote-by-mail election, please look under that pile of old mail on your table, find your ballot, and send in your vote.

If you are still undecided on how you should vote, ask yourself whether it makes sense to increase the taxes paid on the purchase of property to make housing more affordable.

Two organizations that are directly involved in the housing issues in San Juan County, the builders who build the homes and the realtors who sell the homes and the land they are built on, have come out against the proposed new tax. They are well aware of the impact that this tax will have on prices that future land and homebuyers will have to pay if this tax passes.

The proponents of increasing taxes to pay for "affordable" housing have been attacking the voracity of the individuals and groups opposed to the tax, implying that their opinions are motivated by self-interest. The opposite is true.

If prices move ever higher, realtors will likely earn high commissions. The money they earn is indexed to the prices that are paid. If anything, their self-interest is best served if the new tax passes. To their credit, most realtors tend to see this tax as a poor substitute for other actions that could be taken to make a broader base of housing available for everyone.

Builders are another group that generally has not supported this new tax. They recognize that their clients will be paying ever-higher prices, but that is not the principle issue. Builders and crewmembers that support families by working in the construction industry are directly affected by the rising cost of housing. Like other wage earners, they recognize that the proposed tax and the rules that the government must follow are unlikely to be of much help to workers like them. Those with good jobs in the trades or service industry earn too much to qualify for the government subsidized housing that may be made available from the increased tax. They do not see a tax increase as a logical way to deal with the affordability issue.

In a spirit of fairness to the proponents of the new tax, several things should be said. The proponents of the new tax have studied the issue and reached a conclusion. Many feel they simply reached the wrong conclusion. They have worked very hard to set the wheels in motion to get their new tax solution on the ballot. The problem for those who oppose the new tax is that they see the shortcomings in the basic conclusion that the proponents reached.

The proponent's solution will raise the cost of housing for everyone who does not qualify for or does not wish to live in one of the government subsidized housing units that new tax may build. A tax funded organization with several million dollars available a year to support non-profits competing for the limited available land for homes in San Juan County, will increase the land costs at an accelerated rate. Those hurt the most will be the first time homebuyers and local home and land purchasers. The best estimates are that half the home and land sales in the county are to other county residents. Those who buy land or a home are being required to pay a tax to provide housing for someone else.

Raising taxes is not the answer.

Sincerely,

John Evans
Doe Bay

[more..]

Thursday, April 27th

Honored to be a part of "Every Fifteen Minutes"

Letter to the Editor:

How impressive!

Every Fifteen Minutes was a great success! I was honored to be a part of it. All the participants took this lesson very seriously and treated it as any other REAL emergency. I would like to thank all the people involved in planning, staging, and funding this operation. Unfortunately, I do not know all the people and agencies responsible for the many different aspects of this program. I would like to say thank you, and help make public the generosity of the Friday Harbor Firefighter's Association. A month or so ago it was determined that the funding for "Every Fifteen Minutes" was maxed out and the Airlift helicopter was not going to be part of the event. Friday Harbor Fire chief Bob Lowe came to an association meeting and asked the firefighters if they would spend the $600 needed to pay to have the medivac flight as part of the program. Unanimously, it was voted to pay for the airlift. I was impressed! This was not Town money. This was from the association. The Airlift helicopter was an impressive addition to this very dramatic and emotional afternoon.

For those of you out there who were not fortunate enough to witness the quality of the island's EMTs, Sheriffs, and Fire-Rescue crews let me just say that San Juan Island residents are lucky to have such dedicated organizers, volunteers, and emergency response personnel.

Andy Urbach
Friday Harbor Firefighter

[more..]

Wednesday, April 26th

Thank You Island Guardian!

Thank You Island Guardian!

To the Editor:

Kudos to the Island Guardian for publishing the splendid letter from Miriam Ziegler and Tom Baldwin and the report of what is afoot in the ongoing disputes about guest houses ("Court Of Appeals Wants To Hear More" 4/17/06). It was my first knowledge of the Manning-Blanchared petition to the court and that a final court ruling might obviate what the county and the Friends are attempting to pull off.

As an architect, I'd like to add one further consideration that has not yet been recounted by our local press. "Houses" can (and sometimes have been) made up of discrete structures that are not connected. In colonial days, for instance, the kitchen was often a free standing structure (as a safety measure to prevent the fires that were routine in a kitchen from endangering the main house). The historically significant Carter Plantation in Virginia had a smaller free-standing structure to house adolescent children and their tutor. This writer knows of at least one San Juan Island home whose other-than-master bedrooms are in a separate structure.

These considerations have been "solved" in other communities with definitions that make the provision of a kitchen the determining factor; i.e. a given set of structures – or, for that matter even within one structure – only one kitchen is permitted "per occupancy," and any additional kitchens constitute an additional occupancy. This, however, is readily bypassed with modern micro-waves, mini refrigerators and dishwashers and a nearby lavatory sink.

These and similar considerations about definitions and how discrete structures can be arranged are offered to remind that design solutions can be arranged to circumvent the statute. There is simply no end to the ways that a restriction on "detached guest houses" can be circumvented. More pernicious, the statutory restriction is quite likely to encourage architectural conceptions which – although legal – might be altogether undesirable. The better solution, both for the intended purpose and the more important purpose of encouraging an overall better character of our community, is to trust in our citizens rather more and in our ordinances rather less; and specifically to listen to the over seventy percent of our county's voters that want detached guest houses.

Albert Hall
Friday Harbor

[more..]

Monday, April 17th

Evans Response to Mr. Munsey

Slow down a minute Tom. You seem to have yourself so tied up bashing President Bush and Republicans that you have lost all perspective on what I was writing about…namely Councilman Lichters statements about the citizen's vote in favor of guesthouses (73.5%). A vote he calls "bogus." The current Council is ignoring the wishes of the voters, plain and simple, with their intent to ban guesthouses.

At the end of your piece, you reference the amount of time that was spent by Rhea Miller, Darcie Nielsen and myself, (three former County Commissioners who actually asked the citizens what they thought about the guesthouse issue). We did spend a lot of effort working on the language that was to appear on the advisory ballot. We got a lot of very good legal advise from Randy Gaylord, the Prosecuting Attorney as well. Your comment about the effort we put into this is absolutely correct, but not as you're wording implies. Sorry.

As County Commissioners, we wanted to be sure that the citizens knew exactly what they were voting for! We did not want any question in anyone's mind as to what the vote meant. None of the shenanigans of voting no if you really mean yes or the other head-scratching mind games that get played on ballots these days. (Maybe like the .05% excise tax increase the voters are going to be asked to approve next month without a voters pamphlet that tells them what they are voting for or against and lots of open questions about how and for whose benefit the money can really be spent.)

I guess I should point out the obvious. The two Commissioners I worked with in drafting the language and who strongly supported bringing the advisory ballot forward were San Juan County Democrats. I was the single Republican on the Board of County Commissioners for eight years. The Board of County Commissioners I served on was hardly a bastion of so called "Republican development interests" that you claim.

Regarding Jackson Hole and Teton County, Wyoming and Gordy's writings that seem to have you so upset. You say you are familiar with this area. Just out of curiosity, I went to the election page of Teton County, Wyoming to see how that "fortress of Republican money" was governing itself.

Surprise!!! It appears that it is a Democrat "fortress!" Kerry carried Teton County with 52.7% of the vote. The vote was 62.24% for the Democrat candidate for Congress. The results were similar wins for the Democrat candidates for the Wyoming legislature. The Republicans managed to elect one person to the State legislature and secure one of the two open County Commissioners seats. As a Republican, I hardly call these results a landslide for the GOP.

Tom, you have a very narrow view of Republicans if you don't mind my saying so. It is true that most Republicans are not socialists, are not opposed to private enterprise, and prefer less, not more government in our lives and do believe that we can't tax our way to prosperity. Most of us are strong believers in conservation and supporters of responsible decisions to protect the quality of life for everyone in the islands.

It is interesting to note that it is San Juan County Republicans who are continuing to speak up for working families, small business owners and their employees, public sector employees, retirees and property owners. It is Republicans who seem most concerned that we are crashing headlong toward becoming the bastion of the rich and famous. To their credit, lots of responsible Democrats are beginning to speak up as well. I don't think the voters, including many Democrats and Independents are getting the kind of local representation that they expected.

It is becoming increasingly clear to many citizens, regardless of political party, that a few financially secure movers and shakers in the Friends of the San Juan's and the current three elected Democrat Commissioners, (now non-partisan Councilmen) are working hand-in-glove. Ironic isn't it, that the ones most likely to benefit from this cozy arrangement are the wealthiest in the islands.

Tom, you have a nice day and thank you for listening.

John Evans…(far from rich, and working hard on a small farm and nursery in Doe Bay).

[more..]

Sunday, April 16th

Structures of Hypocrisy

To the Editor:

If we could levy a tax on hypocrisy we would be the wealthiest county in the state

If anyone is confused as to what, exactly, is a guesthouse or an ADU is: http://www.rockisland.com/~bahrych , or: http://www.doebay.net/garden.html

Scott Bell
San Juan Island

[more..]

Tom, Can You Say "Independent"?

To the Editor:

Under any other circumstance I would not respond to a letter of the nature of Tom Munsey's letter: ""The Republican's Grand Plan""

Tom unfortunately undermines the credibility of his case against those who do not see the world in the same way as he does when he (by subtraction) names me as a "right-wing columnist". Anyone who knows anything about my opinions on virtually all the many topics he vents on will be as surprised as I was to see me, a lifelong political independent, awarded that particular appellation.

If there is anything that my friends and acquaintances on both the right and the left know about me, it is how the opinions I express can either please or irritate one or the other of them when discussing a topic traditionally heavily imbued with partisan political knee-jerk rhetoric.

Political rhetoric is a poor substitute for intelligent discussion. This is the greatest weakness of all political parties who have an unduly high propensity to view everything about them through all too narrow a lens.

I write this response only to dissipate if not dismiss any impression among those who do not know me that I am as Tom, albeit indirectly, describes. I prefer to be heard according to what I have to say rather by how others may wish to brand me.

Stephen Robins
Politically Independent Columnist in a publication that has demonstrated a refreshing willingness to carry a broad spectrum of commentary, political and otherwise.

[more..]

Saturday, April 15th

LETTERS IN SUPPORT OF AN EXCISE TAX

In May, we will vote to authorize a 0.5% sales tax (99% to be paid by the buyer) on every real estate sale to provide funds for a San Juan County Affordable Housing Program.

The ballot language follows: "The excise tax will be collected for ten years in the amount of one-half of one percent of the selling price on the sale of real property. Ninety-nine percent will be paid by the buyer and one percent by the seller. Revenue will be used exclusively for competitive grants and loans to eligible entities for the development of affordable housing for very low, low and moderate income persons and those with special needs."

LETTERS IN SUPPORT:
------------------------------------------
Chasm Between Workers Wages & House Prices

Dear Editor,

I came here over 2 years ago to get an apartment in town for myself and
Guide Dog Rinda. I had no interest in buying a house; been there, done that.

But, like every visitor to this island, I was soon made aware of the real
estate pictures and prices in the windows of Spring St.

As a 'Townie', I am involved every day with people who work and provide
service - always with a generous and interested manner - and I've often
wondered how they match up with the Spring St. pictures and prices.

We cannot keep a real 'community' here without working hard to provide an
alternative to this ever growing chasm between the Spring St. workers and
the Spring St. pictures and prices.

Jim Stegall,
Friday Harbor

------------------------------------------
Is John Evans STILL confused about affordable housing?

Those of us who have been working over the past several years to find a viable solution to the growing gap between the cost of housing and the typical wages earned in the islands have pursued solutions wherever they might exist including both private and public sector solutions. We know with certainty that the Housing Bank will need to bring together many solutions, the most important of which are enabled by the proposed real estate excise tax. Now, a few individuals, including John Evans, are attempting to discredit this effort by casting doubt on the work that has been done without having done sufficient research themselves.

Let's examine John's latest letter (Against the Tax -3rd let down) to the Guardian:

The local affordable housing organizations will NOT have to change their requirements. The local affordable housing organizations require a certain period of residency in San Juan County as part of their homeownership programs. This requirement has stood the test of both state and federal funding for over a decade, and the same policies are in place in many locations around the country. There is NO new element of the proposed local real estate excise tax that will change this. John's argument is simply a tactic to cast doubt and it has no basis in fact.

Many communities across the country use tax funds to provide housing for essential workers. Will we need to make these tough decisions about how to allocate the funds? Definitely! And we believe it is better to have these decisions made locally. We are not proposing government housing as John likes to characterize it. We are proposing local decisions, made by local citizens to meet local needs.

There is a clear procedure for how the money will be spent. We may not know exactly where the housing will be built, but we do have a very clear and strong procedure in place for the county to follow in awarding the funds based on a rigorous application and review process. The competitive process is, in fact, a major strength of the Housing Bank.

The County Council has overall program approval for all aspects of county government. In this case, the County Council cannot cherry pick favored projects, but must approve the overall program or reject it in its entirety. This is done purposely to remove the element of political favoritism and micromanagement from the process.

Information is widely available. Voter pamphlets with pro and con statements are only provided in general elections, however, the text of the ordinance and our analysis is easily accessible. It is posted on the Housing Bank website and we have participated in public discourse on every opportunity including a five part debate in the pages of the Guardian. We have carefully noted concerns expressed by citizens and have published them with our response.

Our Land Bank makes the difference. San Juan County does have the highest real estate excise tax in Washington State, because we voted—with 73% of the population in favor—an additional 1% for land conservation. This is an expression of our collective values—we believe that conserving our natural resources is imperative. Otherwise, there are many counties that charge the state mandated limit of 1.78%, a full quarter percent higher than the current tax in San Juan County. These include our neighbor counties of Whatcom, Skagit and Island Counties.

Down payment assistance programs are available. If working families attempting to purchase their first home cannot afford it already, how will the tax cause them further hardship? While county programs already exist to assist low income first time home buyers, it is not down payment and closing costs that prevent home ownership but the high cost of real estate which is inflating at a rate of nearly 10 times that of salaries. Working families simply cannot qualify for mortgages at today's prices.

Working families priced out of the market will be helped by this program. If working families cannot afford homes in today's market, how will expanding the availability of perpetually affordable homes price them out of a market that they are already denied? At most, it will use land that might otherwise be used for expensive homes that are beyond the reach of working families. Personally, I would prefer that our scarce land be used to provide affordable housing for working families.

What are the alternatives? To be fair, John has advanced alternatives in the flier that he distributed under the name, "Citizens for Responsible Government." He also raised these points at the League of Women Voters debate on Orcas two weeks ago. There was general agreement at that meeting that the Housing Bank needs to pursue many alternatives including some that John proposed. But, John advocates that these should be adopted INSTEAD of the real estate excise tax. All I can conclude is that since John is now a paid lobbyist for a local special interest group, the "approved negative campaign" must go on, regardless of any attempts at compromise or conciliation. That is seriously disappointing.

John pretends to support working families and the efforts of the local affordable housing organizations, but his record indicates otherwise. Over the twelve years that he was Commissioner he consistently opposed affordable housing including his vote opposing the Affordable Housing Fund Commission. Tilting at all the past windmills of John's favorite battles will not solve the immediacy of the problems facing us today. When one is dealing with real estate prices appreciating at more than 27% per year, we must act today, and not simply wish for the past.

I urge John and all San Juan County voters to vote YES for affordable housing.

Paul Losleben
Olga, WA

-------------------------------------------
Response to Gordy Petersen's Guardian Column entitled: "A Dishonest and Divisive Debate"

Gordy, I've had enough of being called dishonest. Since we began researching the affordable housing problem and evaluating many potential solutions 3 years ago, we have been scrupulously honest in verifying our data and citing sources throughout this campaign. We have been very professional about this campaign and we hoped that you would aspire to the same standard. Unfortunately, you've chosen otherwise…now it's time to set the record straight.

• You claim the 0.5% real estate excise tax constitutes a 50% increase in real estate excise taxes…NOT TRUE…a 50% increase in the real estate excise taxes would be 1.265%. In San Juan County, in addition to the Land Bank tax of 1%, there are also the 1.28% K-12 education and public works tax and the .25% tax for local improvements, totaling 2.53%. Thus, the real estate excise tax is only a 20% increase, NOT a 50% increase as you would have us believe.

• You make light of "the working class will disappear…" Perhaps you should be aware that according to the 1990 US Census and information from the 2005 Washington State Databook, that during this 15 year span, the population of SJ County increased by 50%, yet the population of 25-44 year olds, the primary workforce, has declined from 30% (typical in the U.S.) to 20%...the working class IS disappearing.

• You state, "Everyone will pay for this tax." NOT TRUE. This 0.5% real estate excise tax will be paid once at the time of purchase and will be paid 99% by the purchaser of the real estate and 1% by the seller. According to the Washington Center for Real Estate Research, last year there were 480 existing home sales, add to that a smaller number of properties without homes that were sold and that's a far cry from, "everyone".

• You also stated that the real estate excise tax for support of affordable housing "…will increase the County payroll…" This time you're MISLEADING the readers. What you failed to say, is the soon-to-be-voted-on ordinance allocates up to 10% (and no more) of the annual proceeds from the affordable housing excise tax to be spent for administrative staff and expenses. Yes, the County payroll will increase, but it will be offset by the revenue generated by the tax. (See footnote)

• You refer to the homes to be built with these funds as "cheap housing" and "free houses"…again, NOT TRUE. These homes will be modest and durable, with preference given to quality construction allowing them to be perpetually affordable. The fortunate families that become owners of these homes will have a mortgage and pay property taxes, just like the rest of us.1

Hopefully, this will set the record straight.

Rollie Sauer
Housing Bank Campaign Committee

1 (An Ordinance Adding a New Chapter to Title 3 of the County Code Establishing the Collection and Disbursement of One-Half of One Percent Real Estate Excise Tax For the Development of Affordable Housing. )

--------------------------------------------
Young Families Cannot Afford To Buy A Home

Dear Editor,

It's unfortunate that the mailing sent from "Citizens for Responsible
Government" only confuses the Housing Bank issue. The headline implies that
voting "no" would support existing nonprofit community land trusts, when in
fact, the new tax could be an important and much needed source of support
for these organizations.

Also troubling is the assertion that the new tax would harm young working
families.

Young families can almost certainly no longer afford to buy a home in San
Juan County with working wages alone. They are the ones this program is
aimed to help most, particularly as it could be used to extend the dwindling
support of the federal government for low income persons, to those earning a
"moderate" income. The whole purpose of a locally controlled source of funds
is to create the possibility that working families will be able to stay in
our community, and have the security of a home.

San Juan County voters are known to be well educated, politically savvy and
community minded. Let's hope they'll question these misleading, last minute
statements made on a flyer that does not have any persons name on it.

A viable solution for the housing crisis is now before the voters. Please
vote "Yes" to support our existing efforts.

Sincerely,

Nancy DeVaux
San Juan Island

---------------------------------------------

Housing Bank Cherishes Idea Of Island Community

Dear Island Guardian Editor:

It's too bad that Gordy Peterson finds his honors degree in Philosophy "useless." If he rose above the "just the facts ma'm" rhetoric he might find some worthwhile philosophical terrain to explore regarding the upcoming vote on the Housing Bank. Life in our islands is at a philosophical turning point,. We need thoughtful reflection, not paint-by-the-numbers theorizing. Although now being "discovered" to death, the deeper truth is that these islands have been a sustainable home to Native Americans to begin with and in more recent history, farmers and artists and others who chose to live here because they loved the place first of all, not because they could afford to most of all. And love is a word that defies economic analysis and the diatribe of debate. It is a feeling. It is the feeling we have when we gaze upon a landscape that still reflects the integrity of an island. We have the Land Bank to thank for the preservation of so much of what we love about our islands. The deeper truth is that we have the generous spirit of those who voted for the Land Bank and those who buy real estate here to thank for participating in the ongoing cherishing of this place. The Housing Bank, in turn, cherishes the idea of island community. It will help preserve people who live here year-round. People who contribute year-round. People who love it here year-round. Our county has shown great vision and leadership in protecting it's geographic integrity as an island. Let's show the same vision and leadership in protecting the integrity of our community. We all need each other. It's this, not divisive debate, that's at the heart of the Housing Bank.

Thank you.

Janet Thomas
Friday Harbor

---------------------------------------------

I will gladly pay the Real Estate Excise Tax

To the Editor:

In my 28 years as a resident of San Juan Island, I have bought two homes,
built two homes, and remodeled another. If I buy another home here in the
future, I will gladly pay the Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) and the Land
Bank tax. They both enhance the way of life on these islands. I will vote
yes for the REET, and these are my reasons:
Of the concrete workers, carpenters, drywallers, and painters who all
participated in building my present house, all but one have been unable to
afford a home on the island. The one exception is a person who purchased
land here nearly 20 years ago. These days, most can't even afford to rent
a home. The inability of skilled builders to live here will affect
construction costs, due to the cost of flying in off-island workers and
renting temporary space for them while they are working here.

I look at this tax to support the Housing Bank as a personal investment in
the capable people who make good things happen here -- construction and
utility workers, teachers, County employees, those who keep private
business running, etc. If we are to attract capable people, they need to
have a vested interest in the community; they need to be homeowners.
A healthy community adds economic value to my own property. If the
community structure fails, so do we all. The REET is a win-win situation:
our property values remain healthy and those who contribute so much to us
can afford to live here. A yes vote is a vote for us all.

Jeff Brash
San Juan Island

---------------------------------------------
We'll vote yes for the REET because it makes sense.

To the Editor:

Those who oppose the half-percent Real Estate Excise Tax (REET) in support of a new SJC Housing Bank sometimes express these concerns: 1) Government can't solve anything. Let the free enterprise system take care of it. 2) You can't protect working people from the effects of the marketplace, and if only the very wealthy can live here so be it.

These statements ignore some facts about this community that have kept our family here for over 30 years, and others for far longer than that. This place is filled with sophisticated voters who work to keep local government tuned in to local solutions. Hating the government (and all taxes) has not been a popular island tradition.

The islands are also filled with caring people who don't want to live in a monoculture of only the very rich. Many have worked long years in support of programs like the Home Trust, Opal, Homes for Islanders, and the Lopez Community Land Trust. These are programs I believe the Housing Bank can strengthen. It can also work with local builders and architects, local banks and mortgage companies to help alleviate the growing island housing crisis.

We'll vote yes for the REET when we receive our ballots because it offers an island solution that makes sense.

John & Louise Dustrude
Friday Harbor

----------------------------------------------
Support the REET –Invest in Our Community

To the Editor:

There are many reasons to support making affordable housing available in San Juan County but I would like to emphasize that this is an investment with real and immediate economic benefits that far exceed its modest costs. Begin with a fact: the percentage of our population between the ages of 25 and 44 has fallen by one-third since 1990. These are the people who are raising families, working in stores, volunteering at our schools, coaching soccer, serving as volunteer fire fighters and providing essential services such as emergency medical assistance, and repairing roads. Thus despite a 50% increase in our total population, there are actually fewer people to perform these duties now than there were fifteen years ago!

What does this mean in real terms?

1. Increased prices for things we buy. Because housing costs are so much higher here, employers must pay a premium to retain a workforce. Prices must be increased to pay for these costs.

2. Unavailability of services and products. As this crisis deepens, employers can no longer compensate workers enough without raising prices to an unacceptable level. Then we are all forced to purchase goods and services off-island, incurring increasing ferry costs and inconvenience. This is a self-reinforcing cycle. As more people spend money off-island, more stores and services providers close. Also sales tax revenues decrease and must be replaced by higher property taxes, another added cost. People in this age group are the ones who start new businesses and the fact that there are less of them means the business that closes won't be replaced.

3. Paid workers must replace volunteers. Our volunteer fire departments are having a difficult time recruiting new members. Soon we will have to hire professional firefighters. This has hidden as well as obvious cost implications. Clearly taxes will increase. Last year, our insurance company refused to extend fire insurance on our island home after the fire chief informed them of these recruiting difficulties. We were able to secure coverage but only after agreeing to pay substantially increased premiums.

4. Increased Educational Costs. The State of Washington provides funding to school districts based on the number of students enrolled. As our school population decreases, income falls but fixed costs remain unaffected. To make up this difference we will have to increase our M&O levies, another added cost. Also 50% of the current teachers on San Juan Island will retire within the next five years. These individuals have lived here for a long time and secured housing when costs were low. Their replacements will not be as fortunate. Either we prepare to pay significantly higher salaries or find a way to subsidize their housing.

I have focused on economic factors but the less tangible factors should not be forgotten. How much "richer" are we from having farmers' markets here on the islands? And what about live theatre, musical performances and wonderful restaurants? These depend on the energy of young people and the San Juan Islands would be sterile indeed without them. Please consider your own self-interest and what having a diverse population here means for you and vote for the REET.

Dr. Larry Soll
San Juan Island.

----------------------------------------------
Response to One of Albert Hall's Myths

To the Editor:

Is Albert Hall a big meanie? Despite his seemingly mean spirited views I don't think so. I'm sure he thinks of himself as a good person who wants the best for all of us. The problem is he's locked into rigid ideologies. Taxes Bad, Government Bad, Welfare Bad. Hey, I don't like paying taxes either. I want efficient, effective and limited government just like he does. We must have some government and our system where electeds decide on what and how much we spend is a good one. Where the system is failing is the citizen's responsibility to monitor what government does, demand competence and vote intelligently. Democracy will not run on automatic pilot. I know everyone is busy but I fear we've become very complacent and yet complaining.

Others have done a great job describing here the need for the Housing Bank. What about Albert's argument: Why should we give anyone a break at taxpayer's expense? Political outrage at ‘welfare moms' has been popular enough to get presidents elected, example Reagan. While I don't want to see welfare cheats either I wish there was similar outrage at ‘corporate welfare' taking gargantuan sums compared to all welfare scammers combined. Look at just the recent major legislation written by the corporations like the Energy Bill, Medicaid Drug Bill, Bankruptcy Bill, and all the no-bid war and Katrina contracts. Do you hear a peep of protest from Mr. Hall? I think we all agree we don't want anybody cheating us. OK, so what about our Housing Bank?

Yes, it's a new tax burden paid by homebuyers: 0.5% off the real estate transaction. Yes, you could say that it raises the cost of entry for all. That is a cost. But the benefit is ‘perpetually' affordable homes and apartments which we desperately need. The problem is way bigger than the ability of private funding to deal with and the private groups, so far, are unable to do the ‘perpetually affordable' homes we need. Those who get to own these homes sacrifice price appreciation. It's a reasonable and fair trade off. And our community will be richer for the teachers, County workers, etc. who will be able to live here. To reject it just because it's ‘government and taxes' is rigid shortsightedness which will make our community a poorer place to live.

Howard ‘Howie' Rosenfeld
Friday Harbor

----------------------------------------------
Vote yes on May 16th

To the Editor:

A hearty thanks to Island Guardian for posting these different sides to the ‘island affordable housing' issue as we move towards the May 16th vote on funding the new San Juan County Housing Bank.

To me, Hall's arguments represent the typical conservative ideologue's view of the world:

The Free Market Takes Care of Everything. Just Let It Be.

Losleben and the Orcas Research Group have instead come up with something designed for our special circumstances in the San Juan Islands.

Here we sit in a county that usually has the highest home prices in the state – along with some of lowest salaries in the whole state. A free market slam dunk?

As Hall says, this has brought all island home-owners a far higher personal net worth. Indeed it has. Yet living on these islands, we can't expect our nurses and school teachers to move 40 miles inland to find cheaper housing – as most other rich coastal communities on the mainland do. Increasingly these needed members of our community cannot afford to buy homes in the islands where they work. And half of our teachers are retiring in the next few years. Ooops. A little piece of free market banana peel maybe?

Losleben says, put both public and private funds to work here with a small tax (1/2 of one percent) on new home purchases. That can help fund a community-directed affordable housing effort that fits our specific island circumstances and population.

We can keep a fully functioning, diverse community on the islands with home financing that fits a broader island population than most federal and state funds can do.
No free market jingo – no depending on government-only solutions. An island designed, tightly targeted San Juan Islands- specific solution sounds right to me. Vote yes on May 16th.

Lee Sturdivant
Friday Harbor

----------------------------------------------
Healthy Communities Cannot Exist Without Essential Workers

To the Editor:

In May we will have a chance to decide whether San Juan County will adopt a Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). This levy of one-half of one percent on new real estate purchases in the County would boost the funds available for truly affordable housing here. At a time of declining federal and state support, organizations such as the Home Trust on San Juan Island, OPAL on Orcas, and the Land Trust on Lopez would receive direct support for their work. The new Salal Neighborhood in Friday Harbor is just one example of what these groups can accomplish. This Carter Avenue community recently completed by the Home Trust provides homes for fifteen families already resident in the islands that otherwise could not own a place to live here. Other organizations boast similar recent achievements.

Everyone has seen the figures about home ownership in the San Juans–low median income and high real estate prices. The numbers tell us that if you are a construction worker, schoolteacher, secretary, or grocery clerk, your family cannot afford to buy into housing in San Juan County. This situation is very unlikely to improve. In fact, it is getting worse all the time, as housing prices continue to spiral upward, and median income remains stagnant. Young people hoping to start families see that they must leave the islands in order to move ahead. As they leave, the population grows older and less varied. Without the diverse populace required for smoothly running communities, those who stay behind will find themselves in an increasingly barren society, one with fewer young people and fewer people to perform necessary jobs. Our situation should be a matter of concern for everyone who values residing in these islands.

In the East, daily commuters, sometimes travelling by air, work in island retreats where workers have been priced out of the housing market. This expensive solution is not one that we should plan to adopt in solving the problem. It is also mistaken to imagine that healthy communities can exist without these essential workers. The residents of this county deserve stable diverse communities as much as anyone elsewhere. The entire county will benefit from the affordable housing that the REET will help support.

William and Karin Agosta
San Juan Island

----------------------------------------------
Advice From 1888 Is Current Today

To the Editor:

Thinking about the Housing Bank vote coming up in May - one where a "yes" vote is essential to the well-being of these islands, in my opinion - an old saying comes to mind: sometimes we have to look at where we've been to better see where we're going. Where are we going as human beings? The words of my great-grandfather, Theodore Bliss Cunningham, seem to speak directly to our happiness as a community: "Look about you," he wrote in 1888, "and see who are the happiest people you know.

If you can get below the surface, probably the happiest of all will be those who can feel at the end of each day that they have in some way made the hours brighter for some one of their fellows. "Would those who can afford $475,000 (the median home price) to live in the San Juan Islands really begrudge the one half of one percent Real Estate Excise Tax to help make home ownership possible for those less financially fortunate than they are? Looking below the surface, I would guess not, for in their hearts people love to give. After all, we "spend" our lives on Earth, we don't hoard them.

As a senior citizen, many of my friends and family have died or are close to death, and not one has ever said that they wish they had been less generous. Where are we going as human beings? It would make sense to evolve toward our greatest happiness - which, my great-grandfather suggests, resides in an ever-increasing generosity of spirit.

This May, let's vote yes for the Housing Bank and make the days brighter for many of our fellows - and watch our own happiness grow.

Wendy E. Shepard
San Juan Island

----------------------------------------------
A Response To Albert Hall's Myth #2 (Hall Article)

To the Editor:

Whoah, Albert! Are we in San Juan County or Beverly Hills? "Why do we want to encourage the presence of people that cannot afford to live here?" Well, let's see:

Wages earned in-county (1999, not including investment income, which makes up 49% of the county's total personal income), average $19,548 and rank 38th among Washington's 39 counties. According to the Northwest Multiple Listing Service, the average price of a home in San Juan County last year was $465,000. (Please visit http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/realestate/2002766822_appreciation29.html for the entire article.) You do the math!

Those "people" you don't want to encourage are the very ones that teach your children, bag your groceries, cut your hair, put out your fires, clean your teeth, help you in times of medical need, load your ferry, service your car, process your garbage, clean your house, serve you your meal out: the list is endless. When the volunteer fire service is staffed by a cadre of wealthy retired executives, I'll gladly get down off my soapbox, and have a little more time to spend with my family! When someone buying that $465,00 house volunteers their time (and obtains the education) so that a teacher can be paid a living wage, I'll lay off on my worrying.

Those "people", Albert, are my people, and I daresay they're yours, too. They are as fiercely invested in what being an "islander" means -the pride of community, the beauty and grace of our home, and the vision of belonging to such a special place- as you are. In fact, they're so invested they are willing to struggle tooth and nail to grow (or sustain) their roots here. "They" are a vastly silent majority, and "they" deserve more than a cursory let-them-eat-cake dismissal.

The affordable housing issue is about so much more than putting a roof over a teacher or volunteer firefighter's head. At the very least, it's a wake up call for the people of San Juan County -ALL the people, to look our own increasingly classist reality in the face, and work proactively for a future that preserves the value and integrity of this community.

Thank you, Albert, for giving me an absolute affirmation of why I'll be voting FOR the housing bank.

Respectfully,
Dacia Youngren

[more..]

The Republican's Grand Plan

To the Editor:

Response to John Evans' recent letter and to most of the stable of right-wing columnists in The Island Guardian (Ron Keeshan & Bill Weissinger being the notable exceptions)

In case it's not obvious to readers of the Island Guardian, here's the battle plan of the Republican development interests who are, as usual, pushing to open up the county for no holds barred development.

● Use the non-partisan election aspect of the new Charter and once again push for freedom of choice and property rights. Republicans hope to sneak in here as non-partisan champions of freedom. It's worth quoting Will and Ariel Durant here: "Freedom, in the symbols of the rich, means freedom from restraint in the exploitation of the poor."
● Discredit the sitting Council, using Council citizens' access time and letters and columns in the local media to get their point across. The full-page ads will come later. This is totalitarian capitalism, as defined by (the other) Guardian columnist, George Monbiot, where any and all resources are brought to bear on any visible threat to profit.
● Complain that the Council should stick to county business and not address national problems, such as the proposed ballot measure to demand immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. Note that they will never say that they approve of the Iraq war, since they know the overwhelming majority in the county is against it. I urge these people to have the courage of their convictions and state their reasons why they support Bush and the war effort. They might as well say so now, because, if they plan to run for public office, they will be asked that question in every public candidates' forum they attend.

On the letters and columns coming out against the Housing Bank, it seems that any attempt to help the lower income segment of society is bad, if it doesn't have a built-in plan to benefit the private business sector. A recent column ( Falling Into The Jackson Hole) pointed to Jackson Hole, Wyoming as an example of what will happen in the county if the Housing Bank ordinance is passed. Based on my personal experience, Jackson Hole is a fortress of republican money; it is a world-class ski resort and tourist destination for Yellowstone and Grand Teton Parks; and a few rich people run the town and the area. Vice-president Cheney's official non-DC residence is Jackson Hole. I have had some professional experience with Jackson Hole in trying to fix problems with the Snake River migrating into million-dollar waterfront lots. The "citizens" got the Corps of Engineers to fix the problem at the expense of the riverine environment and for the benefit of the riverfront lots. "Citizens" being the rich Republicans that got the government to override the objections of the Corps of Engineers (essentially my objections) and do something that they would never ordinarily approve. One could say that money that could have been used in the 90's to raise the levees in New Orleans was used instead to protect rich republicans' Jackson Hole investments.

On asking for an apology from Councilperson Lichter for calling the guest house vote "bogus," Lichter need not apologize for speaking the truth. I was there and witnessed the endless fiddling with the wording of the ballot language to elicit the desired response so that no one, except the unwashed and unsaved, could possibly vote against it.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves for trying to sneak in your no-government, private profit agenda once again. Go back to your villas. No one is going to vote for you.

Tom Munsey
San Juan Island
[more..]

Councilman Lichter Owes The BOCC An Apology

Councilman Lichter owes an apology to former County Commissioners Rhea Miller, Darcie Nielsen, and me, as well as Prosecutor Randy Gaylord for referring to the ballot measure on guesthouses last November as being "bogusly written" and that the advisory ballot measure was asking citizens to agree that it is "right to break the law." Councilman Lichter's lack of understanding of the GMA process and a councilmen's role in representing the citizens of the County is scary.

Using an advisory ballot to ask citizens their opinion on a local issue being decided by our local elected officials is legal and appropriate. The prior Board of County Commissioners listened. We continued to use the appeals avenues available to the County to try and meet the desires of the citizens. This current council is choosing to ignore the expressed will of the 7,100+ voters who supported allowing guesthouses…over 73% of the votes cast. That number of voters and percentage is a landslide by any standard! To use Councilman Lichter's words…ignoring that kind of public sentiment is "bogus."

[more..]

Thursday, April 13th

So What Happened To The Promises?

Letter to the Editor.

Our County Charter allows for the citizens to use Initiatives and Referendums to make our leadership (and I use this term loosely) do the will of the people.

Two years ago we were promised a more Transparent Government, less lawsuits against the County, increased morale for County Employees, a more efficient Planning Department and Millions of Dollars in Grants that were there for the taking.

Today our government has more Executive Sessions than I can ever remember and citizens forced to bring suit to get information from anything but a "Transparent Government". The Planning Department (now Community Development and Planning) can't find people to work there and morale, based on the conversations I have had with County Employees, seems to be at an all time low.

If those Millions of Dollars in Grant money are so available, why do we need a tax increase? One member of the Council during his campaign said we should be able to increase our Grants by 300%. At the time our County was receiving about two million a year in Grants. Where is this money today?

Our County Charter also allows for Recall.

Ray Bigler
San Juan Island

[more..]

We Could Do Better With A Mop!

To the Editor:

My hat is off to Mr. Visser taking the county to court and proving that there are definitely underhanded "dealings" that aren't given out to the public! If they really had the public's interest at heart why are deals like this done behind closed doors? As far as I am concerned this goes to prove that they are under handing this county. Why would one want to keep them in their position that they now have? We all would be better off replacing them with a mop leaning up in a corner.

Daryl R. Boulton
San Juan Island

[more..]

Monday, April 10th

LETTERS ON SALARY COMMISSION

-------------------------------------

The Good Old Boys At Work

Dear Editor:

The County Council proceedings on Tuesday (4/18)regarding Pam Nichols' rejection as the County Administrator Pro-Tem's nominee to fill the Citizens Salary Commission's designated position for an expert in personnel management was, at once, inspiring and stupefyingly unfair. Speaker after speaker protested Nichols' inexplicable rejection with arguments based on facts. Pam Nichols is impeccably well-credentialed, she has decades of experience in the field, she is compassionate, she makes decisions without bias or prejudice, she is independent, and, collectively, the sum of her qualifications add up to a singularly fine nominee. The quality of the arguments made me proud to be a citizen of San Juan County.

The response from the Council was amazing. One said essentially nothing to the points raised and the other two unapologetically revealed their preference for a second person, Randy Cornelius, (who was selected) through comparisons of the two people – comparisons that the process itself should have prevented while the Nichols nomination was under review. Nichols was the nominee, no one else, yet the Council admitted that the second nominee requested from the County Administrator was added to the mix before rejecting Nichols. Why have nominees at all if the council can wait for a preferred candidate and reject the designated nominee without explanation – a nominee they themselves agreed was an outstanding candidate?

The person selected should not have been in consideration at all while Nichols was being evaluated, yet this is exactly what the Council did. This is what two members of the Council say they did. That the person selected is, in my opinion, far less qualified worries me less than the Council's blatant disregard of the process the voters put in place with their affirmative vote on the new charter. If this is how the Council plans to implement the charter, we are all in trouble, and they should be ashamed.

I am left with the conclusion that Pam Nichols was rejected for one "reason" – that she is married to a former freeholder. One Council member, Kevin Ranker, expressed concern in an earlier interview about bias, the inference being that Nichols would be biased but that Randy Cornelius would not be. Mr. Cornelius, OPALCO General Manager will now be part of the commission who will set the salary of Council member Bob Myhr who is also a member of the OPALCO board of directors. Mr. Myhr abstained from voting on the Cornelius appointment after praising Mr. Cornelius. Mr. Myhr is Mr. Cornelius' boss. He knows that the appointee he endorsed will help to determine his salary.

This situation is remarkable, all the more so because the Council seems oblivious to its own capriciousness and unprofessional behavior on the matter of Pam Nichols' nomination. Her rejection is an insult to all of us.

Janice Peterson
San Juan Island

-------------------------------------
They Listen, But Do Not Hear

Dear Editor:

It was clear from the Council Meeting on Tuesday (4/18) that the Council does not intend to reconsider their rejection of Pam Nichols for the professional Personnel Management slot on the Salary Commission. It is to the Council's credit that they listened to the many speakers who protested the rejection of a qualified for an unqualified candidate. However, it was also apparent they weren't really hearing what the many speakers were saying.

From the comments at the end of the Citizens Access Time it is clear that they were making a couple of assumptions, perhaps unconsciously. The first is that anyone with management experience is qualified as a Personnel professional. That is no more true than that a hospital administrator can do the job of oncologist. Who do you want treating your cancer? These jobs have separate competencies. That there are special competencies of knowledge and process in HR was made eloquently clear in the testimony of Lori Stokes. The voters of San Juan County deserve that professional expertise, whether from Nichols or some other qualified person.

The second assumption was that Pam Nichols could not represent or understand the values of the "workingman" population, the reason Alan Lichter gave for selecting the other candidate. Such a qualification should never have been a consideration for the professional Human Resources slot, although it is certainly a value for representation in the six at-large slots. But did they think Pam Nichols arrived into the world fully credentialed as a corporate V.P. of Human Resources without working at lower level positions first? (True, she was never a lineman, a strong plus in the other candidate, but she has a niece who was.) Pam, like many successful professionals, is a self-made woman; she received no family financial assistance for her college education, and supported herself for the four years, working two jobs (and sometimes three during the summer) while attending Business School at the U. of Minnesota full time. She knows how to scrimp and save and work two jobs to get ahead. But that is not her qualification for the Personnel Management slot and it should not be a signal qualification in any candidate for that slot.

Unless the Council can produce evidence that the person they selected has professional level training and job experience in the field of Human Resources, they have not fulfilled State law in selecting their candidate for this slot, and they have deliberately deprived the residents of this county of expertise that was available. We are the poorer for their decision.

Nancy Lind
Friday Harbor

-------------------------------------
speech Benjamin Franklin made in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention about the "dangers of a salaried bureaucracy

Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence in the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice—the love of power and the love of money. Separately, each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but, when united in view of the same object, they have, in many minds, the most violent effects. Place before the eyes of such men a post of honor, that shall, at the same time, be a place of profit, and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it. The vast number of such places it is that renders the British government so tempestuous. The struggles for them are the true source of all those factions which are perpetually dividing the nation, distracting its councils, hurrying it sometimes into fruitless and mischievous wars, and often compelling a submission to dishonorable terms of peace.

And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable preeminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters? It will not be the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your government and be your rulers. And these, too, will be mistaken in the expected happiness of their situation, for their vanquished competitors, of the same spirit, and from the same motives, will perpetually be endeavoring to distress their administration, thwart their measures, and render them odious to the people.

Besides these evils, sir, tho we may set out in the beginning with moderate salaries, we shall find that such will not be of long continuance. Reasons will never be wanting for proposed augmentations; and there will always be a party for giving more to the rulers, that the rulers may be able, in return, to give more to them. Hence, as all history informs us, there has been in every state and kingdom a constant kind of warfare between the governing and the governed; the one striving to obtain more for its support, and the other to pay less. And this has alone occasioned great convulsions, actual civil wars, ending either in dethroning of the princes or enslaving of the people.

Generally, indeed, the ruling power carries its point, and we see the revenues of princes constantly increasing, and we see that they are never satisfied, but always in want of more. The more the people are discontented with the oppression of taxes, the greater need the prince has of money to distribute among his partizans, and pay the troops that are to suppress all resistance, and enable him to plunder at pleasure. There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh—get first all the people's money, then all their lands, and then make them and their children servants for ever.

Tim Blanchard
Orcas

-------------------------------------
The Council owes it to the voters to choose the BEST qualified candidate

Letter to the editor:

San Juan County is fortunate in having civic-minded volunteers for positions in the Salary Commission. We are especially fortunate when, from such a small population, we can get a volunteer who meets all the criteria for the slot for Personnel Management with county level as well as international corporate experience. We are fortunate in our County Administrator Pro Tem for recognizing this expertise and recommending Pam Nichols for the Personnel Management slot on the Salary Commission. We are NOT fortunate in the Council decision to ignore an extraordinarily qualified person meeting all the criteria for one who does not.

That she is a woman should not matter. That she is not affiliated with members of the Council should not matter. That her husband was civic-minded and served as a Freeholder should not matter - pro or con. The Council owes it to the voters to choose the BEST qualified candidate for the slot - or be shamed for pettiness , self-interest, and/or antediluvian sexist values.

Nancy Lind
Friday Harbor, WA 98250
nklind@rockisland.com

-------------------------------------
(The following was sent in by Sondra Bayley of San Juan Island)

To the Editor:

Pam Nichols was recently rejected by the County Council from serving on the Salary Commission. She was the most qualified of the applicants, (as evidenced by being selected by the County Administrator Pro Tem) having had a career in personnel that culminated in a position as VP. Human Resources. Although no reason was given for her rejection by the County Council, one presumes it was because her husband, Charlie Bodenstab, was a freeholder and has been a strong proponent of holding the Council to the provisions of the new Charter government.

One could envision Pam receiving the following rejection letter:

Dear Mrs. Charlie Bodenstab:

We are sorry to inform you that we have vetoed your appointment to the salary committee. As Charlie Bodenstab's spouse, I am sure you could have brought to the committee much of his wit, wisdom and intelligence. Sadly, those are just the qualities of which we are over-supplied at the moment.

Mrs. Bodenstab (or if we may be so bold, "Mrs. Charlie"), we have no wish to cause you pain. It is merely that we would not want you to bother your pretty little head with all of these pesky details like how much we should be paid. Some claim that we do not recognize you as a person in your own right!

Mrs. Charlie, we hope you don't believe that, because you obviously, as Charlie's wife, have a very clear identity in our minds. I am sure you have your own wit, wisdom and intelligence to offer, and believe us, we think the committee would have been well-served by your presence, as we don't think it yet has any blondes on it. (By the way, did you hear the one about the blonde who... oh, never mind, we'll tell it to you the next time you appear before us.) Alas, we think you are better served by serving your man, as the Good Lord intended.

Regretfully yours,

The County Council

[more..]

Thursday, April 6th

A Call For Candidates For CC

To the Editor:

The recent announcement that Gene Knapp is going to run for councilman for his district at Orcas personifies a major success of one of the key objectives of the charter. The amendment that set up the; six-member, part-time commissioners who need to campaign only in their specific district, was intended to attract candidates exactly like Gene. I doubt that Gene would have considered running under the old arrangement, but now the County has been given an opportunity to capitalize on the talents and background of this outstanding individual.

I hope that others of similar talents will think seriously about this opportunity. We are now in a position to attract a much broader range of candidates than ever before. Persons with current jobs such as teachers, electricians, lawyers, real-estate agents, or retirees, will all find the new situation much more conducive to being a councilperson for our County. The prospect of a council populated by persons of Gene Knapp's abilities, talents, background and personality is an exciting prospect.

Charlie Bodenstab
San Juan Island

[more..]

Tuesday, April 4th

"Council is ignoring the voice of the people"

Letter to the editor:

At the County Council meeting this past Tuesday, March 28, I attended and expected to speak and get some answers on the LTAC issue, since it was on the agenda. It was only through the grapevine that some of us found out what the agenda would be. Seems the Council wants to keep that private information. Stephen Robins asked the Council for more transparency in the future. They now say that in the future the complete agenda of items scheduled for discussion will be posted on the Internet Monday afternoon before their meeting Tuesday.

I asked the Council if I would be allowed to speak during their discussion of the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, since I have been a member of that committee for years, and had issues that needed some resolution. I was told, "No"… I would not be allowed to speak at that time, but could say a few words before their session started. I was given five minutes. This was frustrating, because during their discussion later, various things were said that I question. I had no opportunity to ask for answers or give clarification.

Previously, when we had the three County Commissioners in public session, we would sign in before the start on a clipboard by the door to the chambers, and were called upon to speak as the issue came up on the agenda. This right has now been taken away. What happened to freedom of speech? Dealing openly with constituents is an issue that in my opinion is critical to democracy.

[more..]