Part Two -Notes From Down Under

New Zealand is nuke free. They told our Navy to go home. Now they are almost virtually defenseless. They have almost zero military spending. They passed this “no nuke’ policy in 1989. For the record, San Juan County did it first. I’m not saying that the Kiwis did it because we did, but they might have. I think a small well-armed group of militants could take over this country and sail it to the Philippines or Indonesia.

We visited the small village of Te Puke. We saw signs like, “Loose weight at Te Puke gym”. I know you can get sick from working out and throwing up is one way to loose weight. Or how about “Te Puke Fish and Chips, Takeaways!” Not the best advertising. It is actually pronounced “Tee Pookie”. It just looks wrong when it’s written.

We had an intense day of immersion in the Maori culture. This came as a surprise to us because it was not really mentioned in the tour package. But these people have a history of cannibalism. And their culture is viewed in a most sacred way by the New Zealanders.

The Maori hunted the large Moa bird to extinction. If original peoples do something like this, it is described as a natural act and a result of their inevitable quest for survival. If the white man does it there is no end to the lectures about environmental destruction and disrespect for mother earth.

The tour guides always speak about the natives with a hushed reverence. They used to eat human flesh for crying out loud! And in the tourist show the heavily tattooed Cheiftan really joked about eating us. The women danced around and shouted angrily in our faces until their eyes actually bugged out like Marty Feldman in the Mel Brooks movies. The men poked at us with spears in a most unfriendly and intimidating manner. They stick their tongues out as a way to say “We will eat you now!”

The NZ government is actually paying reparations to the Maori. I wonder if the politicians are afraid of being barbequed? I think it is time to say a few words about multiculturalism. In NZ this phenomenon has overtaken everybody with its insidious political correctness.

If you think rationally, it is obvious that Western Civilization has brought some great advantages to the modern world. The native peoples have admitted this to me today. They want to live in two worlds, to have their cake and eat it to. The Maori Chieftain said, “We must know where we came from to know where we are going”. What does that mean? A little John Lennon is handy here. “Imagine all the people living for today. Hey hey.” Most people living today had absolutely nothing to do with events that happened before they were born. That’s true only if you think rationally.

One interesting thing about this last U.S. election is that, in America, we will no longer have to consider reparations to blacks. As long as history has been recorded in the U.S. blacks have protested and defied the authority of their white European oppressors. They have refused to conform to the white mans society and they have dubbed him “The Man”. Hey, who da man now?

(Gordy graduated with honors from Seattle Pacific University with a degree in Philosophy. He also attended Theological Seminary. He has spent most of his life in the San Juan Islands. He once owned a small chain of grocery stores in the islands. He has many years of active participation on utility boards and in countywide planning under GMA including membership on the original Citizens Committee for drafting the Comprehensive Plan, Vice Chair of the Countywide Steering Committee, and Chairman of the San Juan County Planning Commission. Most Recently, he served our community as an elected Freeholder from District 1)

Notes From Down Under -Part One

Editor's note: We asked Gordy to send us his observations as he and wife Lori take a winter vacation cruse. Gordy replied with the first note, and the comment that "the following articles are random notes from a trip we are taking 'down under'. Many of you have been all around the world and will not have the slightest interest in my observations." We found them to be entertaining and interesting; we hope you will too. Here is the first one.

Part One

Many rumors about this place are false. For instance, you do not need magnetic shoes to keep yourself on the ground. They would come in handy on this rocky ship. I am always hanging on to the rails and lurching around. I stopped off at the front desk to find out what my balance was and the guy pushed me over. The funny thing is we are still tied up in port.

Last night we met the Captain. He is Dutch. The crew is made up of Indonesians and Filipinos. It was hard to understand the Captain because he spoke vith a wary heevey accent. “No ting goze into de toilet except vith de toilet paypperes pleezee!” He said, “To doo odorwise vill clogg up ebbreeting.” This message about toilet flushing has been pounded into the heads of the passengers. I have come to believe that the crew is on the verge of mutiny. If they have to unclog one more toilet with Kleenex flushed down it the Captain will be handed over to the cannibals and the crew will set sail for Indonesia and the Philippines.

Today we visited the surfing port of Tauranga. This is a sub-tropical climate area with beautiful beaches. We saw Kiwi farms, sheep, lots of sheep, vast pine forests with a thriving lumber industry, ripening oranges, palm trees and giant tree ferns that look like palm trees, beautiful lakes and streams filled with huge trout, and miles of green pastures. Their gardens are to the point ours are in June.

We found out that the average annual wage in the country is $36k. The New Zealand dollar is .58 of the US dollar. We traded in some US currency and hit the jackpot! The income tax rate is 19% for those making under $60k and 39% for everyone over that. There is a 12.5% sales tax on everything. They pay a sales tax on real estate. License fees are exorbitant and so are utility fees. SO there is no real incentive to earn, let’s say, $60-100k. That is why we are seeing some apparently lower middle class vs very rich. The rich New Zelanders are not very popular with the bus drivers here. They must pay for everyone else’s social program plus their own so you would think they would be loved. But no.

Priorities

Perhaps you are troubled by the recent staff layoffs and park closings. These budget cuts are the result of years of excess spending, misplaced priorities, and a lack of serious concern for maintaining an adequate reserve fund. This past period of indulgence has come to an abrupt end.

The summary of accounts below is an eye-opening look at how money was spent on a transfer station project that has little, if any, public support. The spending was authorized by a number of contracts with details described below.

Some of the work was performed in an attempt to create enthusiasm for a plan to relocate the dump. The plan was then taken to the point where it stands today; a final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is due before the end of the year, and a decision to move it or not, will be made by early next year. The project has still not generated much public support and appears to be doomed under a tight budget. Here is some background.

In June 2008, I requested information about the total cost of the DEIS for the transfer station project. Here is the response I got via email from Stan Mathews, 7/9/08:
The budget for the EIS for the Transfer station is scattered among several sections of the budget, but according to Jon Shannon, the total is approximately $150,000. If you need more detailed information, we'll have to have you curl up with the budget book. (Let me know.)

While researching the EIS documents, I found references to several reports generated by engineering contractors and consultants. I decided to request all of the contracts for EIS work. Mr. Matthews promptly directed Public Works to provide contract documentation of current costs for producing the Draft EIS and Final EIS for the San Juan “Transfer Station Relocation Project”.

Over the course of several hours I went through the 15 contracts and took the notes below. I have made condensed general comments about the scope of work for each contract. I tried to be precise and accurate in these abbreviated notes. The Council or the Administrator authorized the contracts. If you get to the bottom line it is obvious that the EIS cost a great deal more than Mr. Shannon stated and it is still adding up.

The following is a list of contract summaries between San Juan County Public Works and several different engineering and consulting groups. In my opinion this is an example of excess spending on a misplaced priority. After reading this you may agree.

Contract information for Transfer Station relocation project 2006-2008.

Contract # Date Contractor Amount of Contract

08SW.008 9/9/08 Allen Emerson....................$960.00
Scope of work summary:
Organize public Comments

08SW.001 2/25/08 Zender-Thruston................$25,000.00
Scope of work summary:
SJC hired attorney Robert Carmichael to represent
SJC and to assist PA’s office with work related to
Transfer station.

08SW.003 8/28/07 Picketts Engineering..........$33,000.00
Scope of work summary:
Revise conceptual layouts for DEIS including
Storm water, wetlands, etc. Excerpts:
6. “A planning level probable cost of construction
estimate will be prepared for each of the 5 layouts.”
8. “A memorandum summarizing planning level
cost estimates will be prepared.”

07SW.08 8/28/07 Picketts Engineering............$14, 000.00*
Scope of work summary:
*Same as above except $14, 000.00 is broken out
separately. This amount may be included in above cost.

06SW.11 8/7/06 Picketts Engineering................$9,950.00
Scope of work summary:
Prepare 4 conceptual layouts for August SWAC
Meeting. Compare existing vs new layout in generic form.

06SW.06 5/22/06 Picketts Engineering............$12,500.00
Scope of work summary:
Provide input to Norton-Arnold and Gary Harshman
(project managers). “obtain the County’s research
already conducted regarding curbside service on SJ.”

08SW.004 5/21/08 AMEC Earth & Enviro..........$139,801.01
Scope of work summary:
DEIS to be done according to scoping document.
Required to determine planning level costs including:
Acquisition, site development, construction, expansion,
operational, and maintenance costs. (I was told here will be additional
work and cost to this contract. I have not received details yet).
“As you know, there will be a final supplemental amendment to the AMEC contract 08SW004. I plan on getting you the cost and scope documentation this week to begin processing the supplemental.” 9/16/08 email from Steve Alexander

07SW.06 5/8/07 AMEC.....................................$81,543.40
Scope of work summary:
Scoping process development. Includes comparing
alternatives and description of relevant land use implications
of each alternative with Comp Plan, zoning, and ordinance
and identify all permitting issues.

07SW.03A 3/26/07 Environments........................$25,000.00
Scope of work summary:
Consulting services performed by Gary Harshman.
This is another company run/owned by Mr. Harshman who
Also signed contracts as president for AMEC. Work includes
Managing activities of team including Picketts, Donovan-Kehrer,
Norton-Arnold (Todd Peterson & Chris Hoffman). Develop
strategy for SEPA review, attend SWAC meetings.

06SW.07 5/22/06 Environments...........................$25,000.00
Scope of work summary:
Same scope as above different time period.

06SW.05A 5/11/06 Donovan-Kehrer & Assoc..........$7,500.00
Scope of work summary:
Professional project planning services.

07SW.07A 9/21/07 Norton-Arnold........................$23,011.56
Scope of work summary:
Services of Todd Peterson. Prepare and record summary
of public comments from scoping meeting.
Develop brochures for mailing.

07SW.07 5/24/07 Norton-Arnold..........................$19,017.00
Scope of work summary:
Services of Todd Peterson. Prepare public involvement
Plan for SEPA scoping process. Create mailer, update
Web site, newspaper advertising, etc.

07SW.01A 3/8/07 Norton-Arnold.........................$37,090.00
Scope of work summary:
Services of Todd Peterson. Develop public involvement
Program. Facilitate 6 SWAC meetings ($15,800.00 was
the amount paid for this as a line item for this or
$2,634.00 per meeting), hold “open house” meeting,
write news releases, interview stakeholders (12).

06SW.08 6/8/06 Norton-Arnold..........................$37,090.00*
Scope of work summary:
Same scope as above appears to be supplemental
To above contract but the date covered is different.
According to the note above this contract covered
Work that was preliminary to the DEIS. * One note
of explanation by Steve Alexander follows:
“Please note that the work scope for several of the oldest contracts covers non-DEIS work as well as DEIS work. In particular, only a small portion of the work scope in contract agreement 06SW08 was DEIS work.”

08CD.015 6/03/08 Herrera Enviromental..............$27,679.52
Scope of work summary:
Assist the County in reviewing the DEIS and the
final EIS and consult with CD&P then form written
comments.

Total cost of contracts........................................$518,142,.48

The contract for the final EIS is not included in the above costs. That contract is “still being worked up” as of 10/16/08.

So far the transfer station relocation project has cost taxpayers dearly. It is not clear that the project has public support or that we can even afford to build it. When we spend money like this and turn around and layoff county workers and close parks I think our priorities are wrong. How about you?

The Urge

The urge to spend creates the need to tax. Our Council overspent this year’s budget. Now they need to find creative new ways to tax us. Remember last year when voters rejected the storm water tax? It’s back.

The Council has made it clear that they intend to pass this tax in some form within the next 30 days and that it will not be subject to a vote of the people through the referendum process. It was turned down 62-31% last year. The amount they want to charge us now has increased significantly. The Council’s decision to tax us again does not represent the will of the people. They have simply spent too much and want more.

In the previous storm water ordinance the so-called “service” we got for the fee was the existing roadside ditches that we’ve already paid for from the road fund. Storm water problems originate with impervious surfaces that block rain from soaking into the ground. Roads make up a large part of the impervious surface in the County. Roadside ditches catch the runoff and divert it into areas that can absorb it. Ditches and culverts were constructed with money from the road fund. All the defined projects in the Public Works Capital Investment Plan are around roads. So it makes sense that money to fix the storm water problem should come out of the road fund.

There are two problems with using the road fund:
1) According to State law road funds are not supposed to be used to handle non-road runoff.
2) Because of some recent withdrawals the road fund is short.

To get around the first obstacle the County needs to convince us that runoff from houses in rural areas has created a big storm water problem that is overflowing the ditches and creating widespread flooding but the evidence to support this is lacking. It is hard to take this seriously when it’s obvious that rural landowners are being forced to pay for construction of expensive facilities that promote growth in urban areas. This will require a good spin job to sell because if we look at the budget we know that the money will be spent in urban growth areas, not in rural areas where few improvements are planned.

Let’s follow the money. This year the Council voted to “borrow” $2 million from the road fund to fix the storm water problems in Eastsound. We were told repeatedly that GMA compliance required immediate action to improve Eastsound’s storm water infrastructure. The loan was approved to keep the GMA board from imposing a building moratorium in Eastsound.

The total amount budgeted for this project is $1.756 million. The Public Works Department took $782k from us (45% of this project’s cost) in 2007 and spent all of it. According to the figures above we should expect the project to be about 45% completed with 2 million more to draw upon. Sadly, this is not the case.

The progress report on the Eastsound Capital Improvement Plan is poor. Only a small fraction of the work has been done. Some progress has been made on only one of many planned projects. No permits have been filed so far. There is really no visible progress toward solving any storm water problems in Eastsound.

The biggest problem that many people have is that they lack confidence in the Public Works department to actually spend our money to solve specific problems. Instead the money is spent on other things.

To make matters worse the road fund is short because of irresponsible spending by the Council. They recently voted to take another $3 million from the road fund to buy the old dock at Orcas Landing. The Council members are rudely tapping the taxpayers on the shoulder again with their hand out demanding more money to fix storm water problems. Their urge to spend has created the need to tax. My question is this, if they insist on this kind of irresponsible spending why should we give them more?

I really believe it is time to reign in the spending spree that has caused the need to tax the citizens of San Juan County at the highest per capita rate in the State of Washington.

Reasonable Alternatives

It is the citizens who set forth our governing principles. Our goals and policies have been developed through a public planning process and are set forth in the San Juan County Comprehensive Plan. Leaders should be aware of these policies and use them to govern. If they don’t they will waste their time and our tax money trying to defend decisions that are contrary to our governing principles.

This is happening in the transfer station debacle. Our tax money is being thrown away like garbage into a proposal for a new solid waste facility that may never happen because they are proceeding with a project without understanding how it conflicts with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.

The language in the first element of the Comprehensive Plan is simple and to the point when it states,
“Provide the minimum level of service that is effective, efficient, and affordable to county taxpayers.”
In the light of this policy why in the world would we ever consider building the Rolls Royce of new Solid Waste Facilities when most people are satisfied with the level of service and we have a Chevrolet compact budget?

Either County bureaucrats and elected officials are not aware of these policies or they are confused about how they apply. I think some County officials are confused. When asked how our Comprehensive Plan applied to the planning of a new transfer station I got an answer that indicated they were just now having “a long discussion about the meaning of "Policies and Goals" versus regulations”. However they were not as confused as the contractor who we paid $150K to write the DEIS. They ignored the Comprehensive Plan almost completely.

This is hard to understand because the scope of the EIS clearly called for a discussion of goals and policies from our Comp Plan. Here are their specific instructions:
“Present an analysis covering DOE requirements, the Comprehensive Plan (including Essential Public Facilities provisions), County Code, and Zoning and Ordinances.” (from determination of scope document November 5, 2007, Section 8)

They may have thought that only some parts of the Comp Plan applied to the process of building and planning for a new capital facility and some parts did not. My question is, should County bureaucrats and elected officials govern by the goals and policies they claim to uphold? If the answer is yes, then how are they going to get around all these policies that seem to preclude relocating the transfer station?

This section from 2.2.D Essential Public Facilities.
2. Establish criteria for the siting and design of essential public facilities to:
a. maximize the efficiency of services provided;
b. minimize public costs;
c. minimize impacts on the natural and rural environment; and
d. be reasonably compatible with surrounding land uses.

It seems to me that a discussion of these policies would be appropriate in any plan for a new public facility. It would be hard to argue that Public Works has tried to maximize the efficiency of the existing transfer station operation. It would really stretch the limits of credulity to believe that a fancy new facility in a different location would be the best way to minimize costs, lessen the impact to the environment, or be reasonably compatible with a rural residential neighborhood.

How about element 7 of the Comp Plan? This section specifically discusses what things should trigger the expenditure of capital for a new solid waste facility. According to Element 7.3.A “Remodeling/expanding existing solid waste transfer and recycling facilities” should be considered only when the level of service falls below level “B”. According to Table 3 we are a long way from falling below that level. If levels of service were beginning to fall steps should be taken to reduce the demand for service. Why are we even considering building something new if the level of service has not changed and before any serious attempts have been made to reduce demand for service at the existing facility?

Traffic volumes could be reduced tomorrow if recycling was moved out of the garbage area, if curbside service was promoted and there were better incentives to use it, and if there was a composting area for yard waste. These simple things could significantly reduce demand. If we cut traffic in half the need for a new facility goes away.

I am not a policy expert or an attorney. I could be wrong about how these policies apply. But it seems reasonable to expect highly paid experts who are performing an expensive study to explore these policies and give valid reasons why they may or may not apply. There’s more.

This section on “Location Policies for San Juan Island”
(Appendix 2, Policy 6, Comprehensive Plan)
The Town of Friday Harbor and San Juan County should avoid duplication of facilities and facilities sites when they could reasonably and practically be shared among the two jurisdictions for common or multiple purposes, particularly those that, by their nature, warrant a rural location.

Is it reasonable or practical to relocate the transfer station into another rural neighborhood when the Town of Friday Harbor already shares the Sutton Road site with the County and especially when the Town may continue to use the existing site even if the county moves out? It is startling to think this policy was not mentioned in the DEIS. Here’s more.

Sec 3.8.1. (From the DEIS)
The County has provided for the siting of essential public facilities in their land use code by . . . providing a land use regulation specific to essential public facilities that allows their location anywhere with a finding of no reasonable alternative and if certain criteria are met and subject to a public review and hearing process (18.30.050E SJCC).

It is not clear why the alternative “Sutton Road Site” is not defined as a “reasonable alternative” in the DEIS. Clearly this site has been recognized and studied in the DEIS as a serious potential alternative. The fact that the existing site is a reasonable alternative should prohibit transfer station relocation in another rural residential area. If this is true then we have just wasted several million dollars in this process by not considering the goals and policies in the San Juan County Comprehensive Plan.

Tip of the Iceberg

A lot of money has been spent with the intention of building a new Solid Waste Transfer Station. If you count the $1.8 million purchase price of the Kellsey South property, and add the cost of a $150 thousand Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), plus approximately $338 thousand in materials, staff, and administration this is already a really big investment and we haven’t even started building yet. With this kind of financial commitment it becomes hard to change course. But is this ship headed for disaster?

Yes. There is an iceberg right off the bow of this Titanic. What lies below the tip is the hidden cost of the new facility. I have always thought it made sound financial sense to begin with a cost vs. benefit analysis. In this case the essential part of the equation, estimated cost, is unknown. The public has not even been given a ballpark figure for this new facility.

Five sites are being studied in the EIS. Did you know that the county has no written agreements with the property owners of 3 of the sites? Concerning the Golf Course Rd, Daniel Lane, and Egg Lake sites our County information spokesman stated, “The owners were informed that their properties would be considered and Public Works obtained verbal permission to access the properties to perform inspections and studies for the EIS.”

If the Public Works Department was serious about the potential use of these sites wouldn’t it be in the public interest to at least have an option agreement so the potential purchase price would be known? If the county didn’t even take the first step toward making a serious deal with owners of these sites we can conclude that they were included as red herrings to be tossed aside in favor of the new site that we are already heavily invested in.

If you consider that the cost of studying 5 sites for $150k we just blew $90 thousand to evaluate 3 sites where the County has no formal agreements with property owners, no financial investment in, and no intention to purchase. County leaders are treating our tax dollars like solid waste!

That leaves us with two sites for comparison, the existing site at Sutton Rd. and (drum roll please) the obvious favorite choice of Public Works, the Kellsey South property off Beaverton Valley Road. The truth is even though we have a huge investment in this site we can’t afford it.

It defies common sense to move the transfer station from its present location. The existing site has utilities and permits in place and the zoning is appropriate. The impacts and expectations of surrounding property owners are known. It is wrong to trash another site in a residential neighborhood and create two transfer stations on our island.

Building a new facility does not make financial sense. We are in a situation where the existing tipping fees do not provide us with much of a capital reserve. If we build it with all the bells and whistles and fill it with County workers the tipping fees will be astronomical! If the rates are set too high the Town of Friday Harbor may find it in their best interest to continue using the existing site. That will remove their cash flow contribution from the County operation leaving a big budget shortfall. If the County can’t subsidize operations self haul customers will be forced to make up the difference. The County could potentially end up with an expensive site that few people can afford to use.

We need to change course before we hit the iceberg. Our top priority should be to improve the existing site and find ways to consolidate loads into more efficient trips to the site that reduce traffic, improve safety, and limit the impacts to the existing Sutton Road neighborhood. A separate site for recycling should be a priority.

The public really needs to be engaged in this process. It is not just a NIMBY issue. Before tipping fees go up all around the County to pay for this Titanic failure it is in everyone’s interest to find a solution we can afford. We simply can’t keep treating tax dollars like solid waste.

Supernatural BC

I recently made a video on Victoria’s sewage problem. It has caused an international stink. Did you know there is an organized group of “sewage deniers” in Victoria BC? Well there is, and when they got a whiff of what we islanders think about their sewage they were quick to react in a hostile way.

The group that supports Victoria’s sewage dumping policy has a web site. They say that using the Straight of Juan de Fuca for their toilet is “natural”. Anyone who challenges this assertion is simply an idiot that doesn’t know what he is talking about. Is it possible that Victoria is the only city in the world whose sewage doesn’t stink? How “Supernatural” is that?

The list of adherents to the “dumping-raw-sewage-is-natural” movement is diverse and impressive. This group is made up of physicians, health professionals, scientists, and community leaders. They all have one thing in common. They do not want to pay any money to fix the problem (What problem?). They are a miserly lot. Will they ever get off the pot and do something? Perhaps it would be more expensive not to.

Last year BC increased its tourism promotion from 25 million to 50 million.
Tourism creates jobs for over 114,000 British Columbians and $8.9 billion in economic activity in communities throughout the Province. With the Olympic games coming to the to Canada in 2010 these numbers could more than double.

That is why the threat of a boycott has created such a stink. BC environmentalists and the sewage deniers are united in that they all fear any kind of media focus on the sewage problem that could flush their “Supernatural” image down the toilet. This is why we absolutely need to make a stink now!!

Here is what happened when I attempted to do this. I got several calls and emails from Canadian sewage experts saying that the plastic tampon applicators that I found on the beach and featured in the video could not possibly have come from Victoria. They have been screening out plastic debris for several years now. The offending flushed plastic feminine hygiene products that they call “whitefish” must have come from “local beach campers or ships transiting the area.” Therefore I am an idiot that doesn’t know what I’m talking about.

Okay, first let’s put this all in perspective. It is not the whitefish that are the problem. Yes, they gross me out. The problem is that Victoria residents treat our shared environment as their toilet and don’t seem to care what we think about it.

Now let’s examine the arguments from the sewage experts shall we? As for the beach camper theory, camping is not permitted on our beaches. The transiting ship theory is a classic. How many ships transiting the area have large numbers of women crew whose periods are cycling together and all flush their tampon applicators when they get close to Victoria? What are the odds that the print on their tampons reads in French and English?

Upon closer cross- examination I got an admission that “it's possible that those whitefish are from multiple overflow events (during heavy rains).” It is also possible that they have been on the beach for a long time. Any casual beachcomber can find them.

I was told that some treatment facility is expected to be in place by 2016. Still, 8 more years of dumping raw sewage into the straight is not something that should boost Canadian national pride. Victoria is one of the most beautiful cities in the world. I used to visit regularly. I don’t go there anymore because of their callous attitude about this problem. If others do this too there may be hope that solutions will come sooner and the pollution will stop.

Fireworks Ban

The rockets red glare, The bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the night that our Council needs to be replaced.

We were not paying attention when our Councilmen voted to take away our freedom to use safe and sane fireworks on the 4th of July. Now the fire departments can breathe easier while our Sheriff’s department is tasked with the job of busting kids with sparklers. Neighbors can now tattle on neighbors for disturbing them one day every year with traditional family celebrations to commemorate the birth of our Nation. They will have the full weight of police power behind them. This is wrong.

We need leaders who will work vigilantly to protect our freedom instead of taking it away from us incrementally. We must remember that we are the creators of our own freedom not government. With our freedom comes the responsibility to use it wisely and safely. Islanders have always done this. We teach our children to do this.

We should also teach them the lesson of Independence Day so they will never forget where their freedom comes from. If we choose to illustrate this lesson with beautiful bright fireworks displays on our private property we should not allow our local government to interfere.

It seems like the leaders we have elected have forgotten about freedom. If they intend to replace our precious freedom with ordinances that continue to restrict it they themselves should be replaced.

"I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward for evermore." -John Adams (http://www.answers.com/topic/john-adams) quote from a letter to Abigail Adams (http://www.answers.com/topic/abigail-adams), July 3, 1776, referring to the day before, when the resolution for independence was passed