01/18/2006: "Collier Is More Than A "Concerned" Citizen"

In response to the letter by Roger Collier, it would have been nice for him to have included in his letter that he is the former President of the Friends. Like any other meaningful disclosure, this would be considered relevant. The context of one "concerned" citizen, versus a player in the game, could change the perception of his letter.

I believe that both the County and the Friends will have to live with a judicial decision at some point, so why not now? The Friends stated on their website that upholding the GMA was their goal. I don't see a sudden change in the rate of guest house construction based solely on the judicial decision, except to make up for pent-up demand. If the GMA doesn't allow for guest houses, then so be it.

If we go with the settlement, who gets to choose who gets to build guest houses and who doesn't? Potential future litigation over the settlement is certain, and there is no question it will cost a lot of money, how much no one really knows.

Lets get a ruling and call it a day, we got close but then the "powers that be" made a deal. Even with the deal made, and after lots of litigation, some other County is going to go the distance on this important issue. Once a decision is rendered by the Court the rules will be clearer, and whatever settlement the County has entered into with the Friends may turn out to be meaningless.

At that point we will have to live with a decision that the County does not now want to hear. Why not just do it now?