08/30/2007: "Loss Of Credibility"

The Islands Sounder should lose all credibility for their recent editorial “Divided We Fall”. The title is as worn-out as their newspaper. All you get anymore are advertising inserts that fill every recycling bin each Wednesday. By the time you get through tossing out the mass quantities of ads you are only left with a few pages of uninformed opinion.

In this article the Editor tries to make the point that we should all just get along. All rural landowners should happily pay to subsidize developers in urban areas for the common good. If you disagree then you are a “NIMBY” cheapskate who wants to promote division and disharmony between the islands.

They implied in their editorial that I was one of these people because I questioned the fairness of a tax that subsidizes development. Therefore I am singing out of key in the unification choir.

The problem with the editorial is that the facts about the storm water issue are wrong. They say that “Eastsound residents pay 50% more” than the rest of us. Not true. Only commercial property owners pay more. All residents pay the same rate. Owners of undeveloped property in Eastsound pay absolutely nothing yet the value of their property increases. Why don’t landowners who directly benefit from projects help to pay for them?

They mislead readers again when they state that the tax is only for 6 years. There is no “sunset” clause in the Ordinance. The committee recommended this but it was not included. This tax will go on long after 6 years. Does the Editor have a responsibility to check the facts or at least read the ordinance?

The editorial states that this ordinance was over a year in the making. Not quite. According to email documents I received it was slapped together and given to the brand-spanking-new Council less than 24 hours before they voted on it. The committee had 5 meetings in 5 months leading up to the last minute preparation of the ordinance.

A team of expensive consultants told the committee that, “The idea of all sharing in a cost without regard to actual demand for service is a tax-based approach and is inconsistent with the objectives of user fees. We recommend an island-specific rate approach, based on the cost of serving each island."(FCS Group, issue paper #3 page 2)"

The committee didn’t do it this way. Instead they recommended a countywide tax rather than an island-specific rate approach. Now there will be a vote on the issue of fairness.

The Sounder Editor should do her homework and stop misleading the readers. After all the hard work the readers did to recycle the ad inserts the least you can do is give them the facts instead of your own spin.

(A version of this column was first sent by Mr. Petersen as a letter to the Editor of the Island Sounder; who refused to pint it. Mr. Petersen has asked that it be posted as a column. -Editor)