+menu-


  • Category Archives A Time to Right Wrongs
  • SMP What has Your County got to Lose?

    SMP What has Your  County got to Lose?

    For the record this is my Clallam County

    SMP Public Comment

    What has Clallam County got to lose?

    RCW 90.58.290

    Restrictions as affecting fair market value of property. The restrictions imposed by this chapter shall be considered by the county assessor in establishing the fair market value of the property.

    [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 29.]

    INDEED, ONE MUST CONSIDER  ALL OF THE  RESTRICTIVE SMP  “SHALLS” ON PRIVATE VESTED SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS, AND IN PARTICULAR… THE UNDEVELOPED PRIVATE INVESTMENT SHORELINE PROPERTIES, VIEW, ETC?

    AND, ONE MUST CONSIDER THE VALUE OF PROPERTY  LEFT “HIGH DRY AND DESTITUTE”  BY THE DUNGENESS WATER RULE?

    CLALLAM COUNTY HAS A TAX BASIS OF 11%

    HOW MUCH MORE CRITICAL LAND MASS CAN CLALLAM COUNTY AFFORD TO LOSE AND STILL BE AN ECONOMICALLY VIABLE COUNTY?

    Ad Valorem Tax Dilemma?

    Posted on October 6, 2013 10:19 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    IN CLALLAM COUNTY, INDEED AD VALOREM TAX IS a situation in which PAM RUSHTON, our county assessor, must choose one of two or more UNSATISFACTORY alternatives.

    AN AD VALOREM TAX (Latin for “according to value”) IS A TAX BASED ON THE VALUE OF REAL ESTATE or personal property.

    An ad valorem tax is typically imposed at the time of a transaction(s) (a sales tax or value-added tax (VAT)), BUT IT MAY BE IMPOSED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS (real or personal property tax) or in connection with another significant event (inheritance tax)
    ———————————————————————————-
    The VALUE OF REAL ESTATE (private property)  WITH NO WATER is an extremely taxing DILEMMA IN CLALLAM and SKAGIT COUNTY, and in fact for all tax assessors in WA State.
    ———————————————————————————-
    How much is 20 acres of ZONED farm land worth with WATER?

    How much is 20 acres of ZONED farm land worth with “ZERO” WATER?

    How much is 20 acres of ZONED farm land worth with ONLY 150 GALLONS OF INDOOR WATER USE A DAY?
    ———————————————————————————-
    IN CLALLAM COUNTY, INDEED IT IS a situation in which PAM RUSHTON, our county assessor, must choose one of two or more UNSATISFACTORY alternatives.

    1. DEVALUATE THE REAL ESTATE WITH NO WATER

    2. RAISE THE VALUATION OF REAL ESTATE WITH WATER

    3. CHOOSING BOTH #1 one AND #2 two UNSATISFACTORY alternatives

    4. NOW WITH THE WA STATE SUPREME COURT RULING AGAINST WA STATE AND FOR THE TRIBES?

    5. More DILEMMA? LEGAL ARGUMENTS LEADING TO more UNDESIRABLE CHOICES, in logic, a form of reasoning that, , though valid,

    6. Leads AGAIN to ONE? TWO? OR more? undesirable alternatives.
    —————————————————————————-
    The Bottom line

    The ” VALUE OF REAL ESTATE WITH NO WATER is an extremely taxing DILEMMA IN CLALLAM and SKAGIT COUNTY, and in fact for all tax assessors in WA State.

    Highest and best use

    Highest and Best Use (HBU) is foundational to the appraisal process. It is a process to determine what use produces the highest value for the property. This exercise must usually be done twice: once, under the assumption that the property is vacant; and secondly, as the property is currently improved.

    There are four steps to the process.
    1. The appraiser determines all uses which are legally permissible for the property? Of the uses
    2. Which are legally permissible?
    3. which ones are physically possible? Of those,
    4. Which ones are financially feasible?
    (sometimes referred to as economically supported).

    Of those uses which are feasible, which use is maximally productive for the site. The outcome of this process is the highest and best use for the site.

    A market value appraisal implicitly assumes that a buyer intends to use the property in its highest and best use. This use, therefore, drives the value equation.

    AND, To say nothing of the MAN MADE ECONOMIC DISASTERS for Clallam and Skagit County and the private property owners in those counties?

    THE DOE WATER RULES, SETTING THE INSTREAM FLOW, THE DUNGENESS WATER RULE AND THE WA WATER TRUST.

    ————————————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | High, Dry and Destitute

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/01/highdry-and-destitute/

    Feb 1, 2015 – High, Dry and Destitute WA State citizens, private property owners and … category and have previously been posted on “behindmyback.org”.

    —————————————————————————————

    Research and documentation, YOU MAY continue reading, OR NOT,  for
    AD VALOREM TO AD NAUSEAM ….(is a latin term for something unpleasurable that has continued “to [the point of] nausea”.) on my website behindmyback.org.

    Ad Valorem Tax Dilemma?

    Posted on October 6, 2013 10:19 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    ——————————————————————————–

     

     

     

    AD VALOREM
    (tax (latin for “according to value”) is a tax based on the value of real estate or personal property.)

    Property tax
    Main article: Property tax
    A property tax, millage tax is an ad valorem tax that an owner of real estate or other property pays on the value of the property being taxed. There are three species or types of property: Land, Improvements to Land (immovable man made things), and Personal (movable man made things). REAL ESTATE, REAL PROPERTY OR REALTY ARE ALL TERMS FOR THE COMBINATION OF LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS. The taxing authority requires and/or performs an appraisal of the monetary value of the property, and tax is assessed in proportion to that value. Forms of property tax used vary between countries and jurisdictions.

    Real estate appraisal

    Real estate appraisal, property valuation or land valuation is the process of valuing real property. The value usually sought is the property’s market value. Appraisals are needed because compared to, say, corporate stock, real estate transactions occur very infrequently. Not only that, but every property is different from the next, a factor that doesn’t affect assets like corporate stock.

    Furthermore, all properties differ from each other in their location – which is an important factor in their value. So a centralized Walrasian auction setting can’t exist for the trading of property assets, such as exists to trade corporate stock (i.e. a stock market/exchange).

    This product differentiation and lack of frequent trading, unlike stocks, means that specialist qualified appraisers are needed to advise on the value of a property.

    The appraiser usually provides a written report on this value to his or her client. These reports are used as the basis for mortgage loans, for settling estates and divorces, for tax matters, and so on. Sometimes the appraisal report is used by both parties to set the sale price of the property appraised.

    In some areas, an appraiser doesn’t need a license or any certification to appraise property. Usually, however, most countries or regions require that appraisals be done by a licensed or certified appraiser (in many countries known as a Property Valuer or Land Valuer and in British English as a “valuation surveyor”).

    If the appraiser’s opinion is based on Market Value, then it must also be based on the Highest and Best Use of the real property.

    For mortgage valuations of improved residential property in the US, the appraisal is most often reported on a standardized form, such as the Uniform Residential Appraisal Report.[1] Appraisals of more complex property (e.g. — income producing, raw land) are usually reported in a narrative appraisal report.

    Types of value

    There are several types and definitions of value sought by a real estate appraisal. Some of the most common are:

    •Market value – The price at which an asset would trade in a competitive Walrasian auction setting.

    Market value is usually interchangeable with open market value or fair value. International Valuation Standards (IVS) define:
    Market value – the estimated amount for which an asset or liability should exchange on the valuation date between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s length transaction, after proper marketing and where the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion.

    •Value-in-use, or use value[3] – The net present value (NPV)[4] of a cash flow that an asset generates for a specific owner under a specific use. Value-in-use is the value to one particular user, and may be above or below the market value of a property.

    •Investment value – is the value to one particular investor, and may or may not be higher than the market value of a property. Differences between the investment value of an asset and its market value provide the motivation for buyers or sellers to enter the marketplace.

    International Valuation Standards (IVS) define:
    Investment value – the value of an asset to the owner or a prospective owner for individual investment or operational objectives.

    •Insurable value – is the value of real property covered by an insurance policy. Generally it does not include the site value.

    •Liquidation value – may be analyzed as either a forced liquidation or an orderly liquidation and is a commonly sought standard of value in bankruptcy proceedings. It assumes a seller who is compelled to sell after an exposure period which is less than the market-normal time-frame.

    Price versus value
    There can be differences between what the property is really worth (market value) and what it cost to buy it (price).

    A price paid might not represent that property’s market value. Sometimes, special considerations may have been present, such as a special relationship between the buyer and the seller where one party had control or significant influence over the other party.
    In other cases, the transaction may have been just one of several properties sold or traded between two parties. In such cases, the price paid for any particular piece isn’t its market ‘value’ (with the idea usually being, though, that all the pieces and prices add up to market value of all the parts) but rather its market ‘price’.

    At other times, a buyer may willingly pay a premium price, above the generally-accepted market value, if his subjective valuation of the property (its investment value for him) was higher than the market value. One specific example of this is an owner of a neighboring property who, by combining his own property with the subject property, could obtain economies-of-scale.

    Similar situations sometimes happen in corporate finance. For example, this can occur when a merger or acquisition happens at a price which is higher than the value represented by the price of the underlying stock. The usual explanation for these types of mergers and acquisitions is that ‘the sum is greater than its parts’, since full ownership of a company provides full control of it. This is something that purchasers will sometimes pay a high price for. This situation can happen in real estate purchases too.

    But the most common reason for value differing from price is that either the buyer or the seller is uninformed as to what a property’s market value is but nevertheless agrees on a contract at a certain price which is either too expensive or too cheap. This is unfortunate for one of the two parties. It is the obligation of a Real Property Appraiser to estimate the true market value of a property and not its market price.

    Market value definitions in the USA
    In the US, appraisals are for a certain type of value (e.g., foreclosure value, fair market value, distressed sale value, investment value). The most commonly used definition of value is Market Value. While Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) does not define Market Value, it provides general guidance for how Market Value should be defined:
    a type of value, stated as an opinion, that presumes the transfer or sale of a property as of a certain date, under specific conditions set forth in the definition of the term identified by the appraiser as applicable in an appraisal.

    Thus, the definition of value used in an appraisal or CMA (Current Market Analysis) analysis and report is a set of assumptions about the market in which the subject property may transact. It affects the choice of comparable data for use in the analysis. It can also affect the method used to value the property. For example, tree value can contribute up to 27% of property value.[5][6]

    Three approaches to value
    There are three traditional groups of methodologies for determining value. These are usually referred to as the “three approaches to value” which are generally independent of each other:

    •The cost approach (the buyer will not pay more for a property than it would cost to purchase an equivalent).

    •The sales comparison approach (comparing a property’s characteristics with those of comparable properties that have recently sold in similar transactions).

    •The income approach (similar to the methods used for financial valuation, securities analysis or bond pricing).

    However, the recent trend of the business tends to be toward the use of a scientific methodology of appraisal which relies on the foundation of quantitative-data,[7] risk, and geographical based approaches.[8][9] Pagourtzi et al. have provided a review on the methods used in the industry by comparison between conventional approaches and advanced ones.[10]

    As mentioned before, an appraiser can generally choose from three approaches to determine value. One or two of these approaches will usually be most applicable, with the other approach or approaches usually being less useful. The appraiser has to think about the “scope of work”, the type of value, the property itself, and the quality and quantity of data available for each approach. No overarching statement can be made that one approach or another is always better than one of the other approaches.

    The appraiser has to think about the way that most buyers usually buy a given type of property. What appraisal method do most buyers use for the type of property being valued? This generally guides the appraiser’s thinking on the best valuation method, in conjunction with the available data. For instance, appraisals of properties that are typically purchased by investors (e.g., skyscrapers, office buildings) may give greater weight to the Income Approach. Buyers interested in purchasing single family residential property would rather compare price, in this case the Sales Comparison Approach (market analysis approach) would be more applicable. The third and final approach to value is the Cost Approach to value. The Cost Approach to value is most useful in determining insurable value, and cost to construct a new structure or building.

    For example, single apartment buildings of a given quality tend to sell at a particular price per apartment. In many of those cases, the sales comparison approach may be more applicable. On the other hand, a multiple-building apartment complex would usually be valued by the income approach, as that would follow how most buyers would value it. As another example, single-family houses are most commonly valued with greatest weighting to the sales comparison approach. However, if a single-family dwelling is in a neighborhood where all or most of the dwellings are rental units, then some variant of the income approach may be more useful. So the choice of valuation method can change depending upon the circumstances, even if the property being valued doesn’t change much.

    The cost approach
    The cost approach was once called the summation approach. The theory is that the value of a property can be estimated by summing the land value and the depreciated value of any improvements. The value of the improvements is often referred to by the abbreviation RCNLD (reproduction cost new less depreciation or replacement cost new less depreciation). Reproduction refers to reproducing an exact replica. Replacement cost refers to the cost of building a house or other improvement which has the same utility, but using modern design, workmanship and materials. In practice, appraisers almost always use replacement cost and then deduct a factor for any functional dis-utility associated with the age of the subject property. An exception to the general rule of using the replacement cost, is for some insurance value appraisals. In those cases, reproduction of the exact asset after the destructive event (fire, etc.) is the goal.
    In most instances when the cost approach is involved, the overall methodology is a hybrid of the cost and sales comparison approaches (representing both the suppliers’ costs and the prices that customers are seeking). For example, the replacement cost to construct a building can be determined by adding the labor, material, and other costs. On the other hand, land values and depreciation must be derived from an analysis of comparable sales data.
    The cost approach is considered most reliable when used on newer structures, but the method tends to become less reliable for older properties. The cost approach is often the only reliable approach when dealing with special use properties (e.g., public assembly, marinas).

    The sales comparison approach
    The sales comparison approach is based primarily on the principle of substitution. This approach assumes a prudent (or rational) individual will pay no more for a property than it would cost to purchase a comparable substitute property. The approach recognizes that a typical buyer will compare asking prices and seek to purchase the property that meets his or her wants and needs for the lowest cost. In developing the sales comparison approach, the appraiser attempts to interpret and measure the actions of parties involved in the marketplace, including buyers, sellers, and investors.
    Data collection methods and valuation process Data is collected on recent sales of properties similar to the subject being valued, called “comparables”. Only SOLD properties may be used in an appraisal and determination of a property’s value, as they represent amounts actually paid or agreed upon for properties. Sources of comparable data include real estate publications, public records, buyers, sellers, real estate brokers and/or agents, appraisers, and so on. Important details of each comparable sale are described in the appraisal report. Since comparable sales aren’t identical to the subject property, adjustments may be made for date of sale, location, style, amenities, square footage, site size, etc. The main idea is to simulate the price that would have been paid if each comparable sale were identical to the subject property. If the comparable is superior to the subject in a factor or aspect, then a downward adjustment is needed for that factor.[clarification needed] Likewise, if the comparable is inferior to the subject in an aspect, then an upward adjustment for that aspect is needed.[clarification needed] The adjustment is somewhat subjective and relies on the Appraiser’s training and experience. From the analysis of the group of adjusted sales prices of the comparable sales, the appraiser selects an indicator of value that is representative of the subject property. It is possible for various Appraisers to chose different indicator of value which ultimately will provide different property value.

    Steps in the sales comparison approach 1. Research the market to obtain information pertaining to sales, and pending sales that are similar to the subject property. 2. Investigate the market data to determine whether they are factually correct and accurate. 3. Determine relevant units of comparison (e.g., sales price per square foot), and develop a comparative analysis for each. 4. Compare the subject and comparable sales according to the elements of comparison and adjust as appropriate. 5. Reconcile the multiple value indications that result from the adjustment (upward or downward) of the comparable sales into a single value indication.
    The income capitalization approach
    Main article: Income approach
    The income capitalization approach (often referred to simply as the “income approach”) is used to value commercial and investment properties. Because it is intended to directly reflect or model the expectations and behaviors of typical market participants, this approach is generally considered the most applicable valuation technique for income-producing properties, where sufficient market data exists.
    In a commercial income-producing property this approach capitalizes an income stream into a value indication. This can be done using revenue multipliers or capitalization rates applied to a Net Operating Income (NOI). Usually, an NOI has been stabilized so as not to place too much weight on a very recent event. An example of this is an unleased building which, technically, has no NOI. A stabilized NOI would assume that the building is leased at a normal rate, and to usual occupancy levels. The Net Operating Income (NOI) is gross potential income (GPI), less vacancy and collection loss (= Effective Gross Income) less operating expenses (but excluding debt service, income taxes, and/or depreciation charges applied by accountants).
    Alternatively, multiple years of net operating income can be valued by a discounted cash flow analysis (DCF) model. The DCF model is widely used to value larger and more expensive income-producing properties, such as large office towers or major shopping centres. This technique applies market-supported yields (or discount rates) to projected future cash flows (such as annual income figures and typically a lump reversion from the eventual sale of the property) to arrive at a present value indication.

    Scope of work
    While USPAP has always required appraisers to identify the scope of work needed to produce credible results, it became clear in recent years that appraisers did not fully understand the process for developing this adequately. In formulating the scope of work for a credible appraisal, the concept of a limited versus complete appraisal and the use of the Departure Rule caused confusion to clients, appraisers, and appraisal reviewers. In order to deal with this, USPAP was updated in 2006 with what came to be known as the Scope of Work project.

    Following this, USPAP eliminated both the Departure Rule and the concept of a limited appraisal, and a new Scope of Work rule was created. In this, appraisers were to identify six key parts of the appraisal problem at the beginning of each assignment:
    • Client and other intended users
    • Intended use of the appraisal and appraisal report
    • Definition of value (e.g., market, foreclosure, investment)
    • Any hypothetical conditions or extraordinary assumptions
    • The effective date of the appraisal analysis
    • The salient features of the subject property
    Based on these factors, the appraiser must identify the scope of work needed, including the methodologies to be used, the extent of investigation, and the applicable approaches to value.

    Currently, minimum standards for scope of work are:
    • Expectations of the client and other users
    • The actions of the appraiser’s peers who carry out similar assignments
    The Scope of Work is the first step in any appraisal process. Without a strictly defined Scope of Work an appraisal’s conclusions may not be viable. By defining the Scope of Work, an appraiser can properly develop a value for a given property for the intended user, and for the intended use of the appraisal. The whole idea of “Scope of Work” is to provide clear expectations and guidelines for all parties as to what the appraisal report does, and doesn’t, cover; and how much work has gone into it.

    Highest and best use
    Main article: Highest and best use
    Highest and Best Use (HBU) is foundational to the appraisal process. It is a process to determine what use produces the highest value for the property. This exercise must usually be done twice: once, under the assumption that the property is vacant; and secondly, as the property is currently improved.

    There are four steps to the process. First, the appraiser determines all uses which are legally permissible for the property. Second, of the uses which are legally permissible, which ones are physically possible. Of those, which ones are financially feasible (sometimes referred to as economically supported).

    Of those uses which are feasible, which use is maximally productive for the site. The outcome of this process is the highest and best use for the site.

    A market value appraisal implicitly assumes that a buyer intends to use the property in its highest and best use. This use, therefore, drives the value equation.

    In more complex appraisal assignments (e.g., contract disputes, litigation, brownfield or contaminated property valuation), the determination of highest and best use may be much more complex, and may need to take into account the various intermediate or temporary uses of the site, the contamination remediation process, and the timing of various legal issues.[12]
    —————————————————————

    HISTORY
    The VAT was invented by a French economist in 1954. Maurice Lauré, joint director of the French tax authority, the Direction générale des impôts, as taxe sur la valeur ajoutée (TVA in French) was first to introduce VAT with effect from 10 April 1954 for large businesses, and extended over time to all business sectors. IN FRANCE, IT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT SOURCE OF STATE FINANCE, ACCOUNTING FOR APPROXIMATELY 45% OF STATE REVENUES.

     


  • Space Needle “Workers” insulted

    LOCAL WORKERS advised  to Make Poverty Fun?

    THE NEWSPAPER HEADLINES

    Space Needle “WORKERS” insulted by advice to ‘Live on Less’

    INSULTED definition speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse.

    ——————————————————–

    THE LOCAL “WORKERS” ISSUE,  IT IS FEDERAL, BUT  IT IS LOCAL MEDIA

    Part of the FREE presentation advise “WORKERS” to budget and “Make it Fun!”

    GO TO THE  FREE OR DISCOUNT events “Be creative.”

    WORKERS? EMPLOYEES  ‘LIVE ON LESS’? ADVISED TO MAKE POVERTY FUN?

    This LOCAL WORKERS? ‘LIVE ON LESS’ POVERTY ISSUE is not about minimum wage.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    It is not just Space Needle WORKERS that are insulted by advice to ‘LIVE ON LESS’?

    SENIOR CITIZENS ARE INSULTED BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY  “LIVING ON LESS”

    (70 plus, year old senior citizens are WORKERS at  Wal- Mart greeters just to make ends meet)

    ALL WORKERS ARE INSULTED BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY” LIVING ON LESS”

    MANY “WORKERS” are already WORKING two jobs just to make ends meet.

    IT IS ABOUT OUR AMERICAN PRESIDENT, FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL  GOVERNMENT LEGISLATORS, LEGISLATING IN LA-LA LAND THAT HAVE BEEN CONTINUOUSLY TAXING AMERICAN WORKING CITIZENS  INTO POVERTY.

    DEFINITION OF LA-LA LAND  A EUPHORIC DREAMLIKE MENTAL STATE DETACHED FROM THE HARSHER REALITIES OF LIFE.

    OBAMA’S EUPHORIC DREAM ACT?

    OBAMA’S ILLEGAL ALIEN IMMIGRATION SPENDING?

    Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act  of 2011 (DREAM ACT)

    Behind My Back | The $3.7 Billion Dollar Dumping Fee?

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/07/15/the-37-billiondollardumpingfee/

    Jul 15, 2014 – And, I am NOT TALKING ABOUT CONGRESS LEGISLATING AND SPENDING $3.7 BILLION IN AMERICAN TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO TAKE …

    TAKING AND SPENDING $3.7 BILLION IN AMERICAN HARD WORKING, TAXPAYER DOLLARS ?

    ——————————————————————————————————–

    EMPLOYED AMERICAN WORKERS ‘LIVE ON LESS’? IN LA-LA LAND CAN MAKE POVERTY FUN?

    FIND SOMETHING FREE TO DO? POVERTY CAN BE FUN.

    IT’S FUN TO GO TO THE FOOD BANK AND IT’S FREE.

    FOR FAST FOOD, IF YOUR REALLY HUNGRY, IT’S FUN TO GO  A SOUP KITCHEN, IT’S FREE TOO

    Behind My Back | Obama’s Affordable “FOOD ACT”

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/01/22/obamasaffordablefoodact/

    Jan 22, 2014 – OBAMA celebrates MLK holiday, VISITS SOUP KITCHEN Jan 20, 2014 WASHINGTON (AP)

    Did the president or his family eat any of the affordable

    FREE burritos stuffed with “unidentified” vegetables and cheese?

    —————————————————–

    AND MORE,  ILLEGAL ALIENS TAKING U S JOBS

    Behind My Back | 2014 American Immigration Crisis

    www.behindmyback.org/category/2014-american-immigration-crisis/

    Aug 12, 2014 – Who knew there is a (FAIR) FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION … http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-aliens-taking-u-s-jobs.

    THIS ‘LIVE ON LESS’ “WORKERS” POVERTY ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT MINIMUM WAGE.

    IT IS NOT ABOUT AMERICAN “WORKERS” BEING CREATIVE  AND WHERE TO GO TO GET THE FREE FUN STUFF

    ——————————————————————————————–

    This LOCAL WORKERS? ‘LIVE ON LESS’ POVERTY ISSUE is not about minimum wage.

    WORKERS? To me, as an American citizen”WORKERS” is offensive word.

    AND, I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE.

    Worker – Definition and More from the Free Merriam …

    www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/worker

    Merriam‑Webster

    I FIND IT OFFENSIVE, so I looked up the definition and sure enough, a worker is defined as;

    (1) one who works at manual or industrial labor;

    ( 2) any sexually underdeveloped members of a colony (ants, bees, etc.) that perform most of the labor.

    PLUS a person or animal that works, in particular.

    WHY NOT JUST CALL THEM “GRUNTS”?  a low-ranking OR UNSKILLED soldier OR OTHER WORKER.

    To me  the word “WORKER” DENOTES COMMUNISM

    The word “WORKER” denotes communism

    So I Googled  “WORKERS” denotes communism.

    The Principles of Communism – Marxists Internet Archive

    https://www.marxists.org/…/11/prin-com.htm

    Marxists Internet Archive

    IT IS A TERRIFYING READ… (but that’s another story)

    WORKERS” is an Offensive Word


  • SMP Public Comment #161

    SMP Public Comment #161

    To Clallam County Planning Commission

    And, Commissioners’ McEntire,  Chapman and Peach

    Concerning fatal errors in due process, not posting SMP public comments

    Omitting SMP public comments and a failure to provide  complete and accurate

    summaries of  SMP Public Meetings during the entire SMP process of

    the Nov. 2014 proposed SMP Update Draft

     

    Failure to notify interested parties (WRIA 20 shoreline property owners  and members of the advisory committee on SMP meetings)

    Failure of CLALLAM COUNTY government to provide  critical early and continuous public participation in to the SMP Update

    The purpose and intent of nearly a year of inactivity on SMP public meetings and  participation on the SMP Update? A cooling off period, if  we ignore them for a year maybe they will just go away?

    ———————————————————————–

    FAILURE  TO POST AND RESPOND TO SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

    To: Merrill, Hannah ; Gray, Steve

    Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 12:07 PM

    Subject: WHAT IS NO NET LOSS WORKGROUP?

    —————————————————————————-

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #440 posted 10/4/13

    Failure to provide public outreach  and participation to WRIA 20  throughout the process.

    This is an SMP Public comment
    WA STATE RCW 42.56.030
    Pearl Rains Hewett

    SMP UPDATE EXCLUSION AND OMISSION

    WRIA 20 private property owners are PART OF CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

    There were no private property owners representing WRIA 20 seated at the table for the Clallam County SMP Update Committee.
    Shall we question why the WRIA 20 private property owners were and are IN MANY CASES, being treated like SECOND CLASS CITIZENS and were not informed, not invited, not selected, not appointed, not allowed to actively participate in SMP  Public Meetings?
    Failure to make a special effort to reach the under-represented WRIA 20  throughout the process communities/stakeholders.

    —————————————————————————————————-

    AND,  Failure to  ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION

    Sent: Tuesday,  8:48 AM

    THEY want us to be upset and discouraged, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested I should/could  QUIT.

    Ironically, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested just weeks earlier, somewhat sarcastically, that if I did not like the way things were going I should participate by volunteering to be on the SMP Update Citizens Advisory Committee.

    Hmmm? May 10, 2011 Commissioner Mike Chapman suggests that  if I do not like the way things are  going

    I should/could  QUIT.

    Don’t let life discourage you; everyone who got where she is had to begin where she was.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ———————————————————————————————————————–

    FAILURE?

    Chapter 42.30 RCW

    OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT

    This is the Legislative declaration on RCW 42.30.010

    The legislature finds and declares that all public commissions, boards, councils, committees, subcommittees, departments, divisions, offices, and all other public agencies of this state and subdivisions thereof exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business. It is the intent of this chapter that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.

    The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.

    [1971 ex.s. c 250 § 1.]

    Notes:

         Reviser’s note: Throughout this chapter, the phrases “this act” and “this 1971 amendatory act” have been changed to “this chapter.” “This act” [1971 ex.s. c 250] consists of this chapter, the amendment to RCW 34.04.025, and the repeal of RCW 42.32.010 and 42.32.020.

     

    FAILURE ? As related to the Washington State Shoreline Management Act, RCW 90.58

    RCW 90.58.130

    Involvement of all persons and entities having interest means.

    To insure that all persons and entities having an interest in the guidelines and master programs developed under this chapter are provided with a full opportunity for involvement in both their development and implementation, the department and local governments shall:

    (1) Make reasonable efforts to inform the people of the state about the shoreline management program of this chapter and in the performance of the responsibilities provided in this chapter, shall not only invite but actively encourage participation by all persons and private groups and entities showing an interest in shoreline management programs of this chapter; and

    (2) Invite and encourage participation by all agencies of federal, state, and local government, including municipal and public corporations, having interests or responsibilities relating to the shorelines of the state. State and local agencies are directed to participate fully to insure that their interests are fully considered by the department and local governments.

    [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 13.]

    ——————————————————————

    Shoreline Master Program Update

    FAILURE?  THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    March 2010 Revised March 2011

    4.1 Phase I ‐ Public Participation Program

    Clallam County will incorporate public participation in all phases of the SMP process ,document public participation efforts (e.g., public meetings, community events)

    AND KEEP A RECORD OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED.

    —————————————————————————-

    FAILURE?

    UNPOSTED SMP COMMENTS

    Citizens Advisory Committee on the update of the SMP

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: sgray@co.clallam.wa.us

    Cc: earnest spees

    Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 2:07 PM

    Subject: Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan 1976 and Citizens Advisory Committee 2011

    Steve

    Re: Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan 1976

    I read the 1976 SMP

    My biggest concern would be Page 8 Section 8.

    Lake Sutherland Private property owners have every reason to be fearful.

    Is it history repeating itself? Like the National Park take over of all private property on Lake Crescent?

    I was just a girl when it happened, but I have living memory of the grief it caused.

     

    Citizens Advisory Committee 2011

    While the WA State law about participation does NOT specify private property owners.

    Our Family Trusts own 900 acres of land in Clallam County, we have paid tax on our private property for over 60 years.

    We have property in water sheds, including the Sol Duc River, Elwha River and Bagley Creek, legal water rights, hundreds of acres of designated Forest land, logging concerns, a gravel pit, property for development and a rock quarry.

    With 60 percent of Clallam County under Private ownership;

    I ask you?

    Has anyone (as as private property owner) EVER had a right to, or been entitled to, or had a position on the CCDCD Citizens Advisory Committee on the update of the SMP?

    Pearl Rains Hewett PR-Trustee

    George C. Rains Sr. Trust

    ————————————————————————–

    THIS IS POSTED #50 SMP PUBLIC COMMENT

    FAILURE? Omitting public comments and a failure to provide a complete and accurate

    summary of a Public Meeting

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: SMP@co.clallam.wa.us

    Cc: Gray, Steve

    Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:53 AM

    Subject: ESA Adolfson’s focus study groups

    I read the focus study groups report prepared by ESA Adolfson.

    It was not representative of the meeting I attended on Jan. 26, 2011.

    There was no mention of Lake Sutherland and the outpour of concern by the private property owners. State boats taking pictures of their docks and homes etc. The fear of what the update of the SMP would mean to their private property by making all of them non-conforming.

    I feel that the report was biased, it did not address the issues proportionately, that in their reporting they did misrepresent and not report private property owner’s spoken grievances.

    In ESA Adolfoson’s compliance attempt, they placed far more emphasis on the state take over of private property beach’s and the impute from agencies and business’s  then the concerns of the 60% of private property owners in Clallam County.

    I find it very disappointing  that our Clallam County Commissioners have allowed a totally self serving group of conservationists to publish biased findings and facts as the result of these public focus groups.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ————————————————————————————–

     UNPOSTED SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Gray, Steve

    Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 8:32 AM

    Subject: Fw: STATE DIRECTIVE BY WAC 173-26-191

    Steve,

    Jim Kramer asked for  a copy of this WAC.

    I would also like to add this as my comment on the Advisory meeting on 4/11/11.

    Has a direct link for advisory comments been established?

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————————–

    FAILURE TO POST  SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Lear, Cathy

    Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 12:00 PM

    Subject: RCW’S FOR PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Cathy and Margaret,

    After listening to the questions asked by concerned citizens at both public and the advisory SMP update meetings,

    I would like to submit, as my comments, the following RCW’S to educate, inform and clarify private property owners of their rights and protection under WA State law.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Advisory Committee Member

    PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Protection of single family residences

    RCW 90.58.100

    (6) Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall govern the issuance of substantial development permits for shoreline protection, including structural methods such as construction of bulkheads, and nonstructural methods of protection. The standards shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall provide a preference for permit issuance for measures to protect single family residences occupied prior to January 1, 1992, where the proposed measure is designed to minimize harm to the shoreline natural environment.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

     Unintentionally created “Wetlands”

    RCW 90.58.030

    Definitions and concepts.

    (h) “Wetlands” means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

    LAKE SUTHERLAND

     

    RCW 90.24.010Petition to regulate flow — Order — Exceptions.

    Ten or more owners of real property abutting on a lake may petition the superior court of the county in which the lake is situated, for an order to provide for the regulation of the outflow of the lake in order to maintain a certain water level therein. If there are fewer than ten owners, a majority of the owners abutting on a lake may petition the superior court for such an order. The court, after notice to the department of fish and wildlife and a hearing, is authorized to make an order fixing the water level thereof and directing the department of ecology to regulate the outflow therefrom in accordance with the purposes described in the petition. This section shall not apply to any lake or reservoir used for the storage of water for irrigation or other beneficial purposes, or to lakes navigable from the sea.

    [1999 c 162 § 1; 1985 c 398 § 28; 1959 c 258 § 1; 1939 c 107 § 2; RRS § 7388-1.]

    Notes:

         Effective date — 1985 c 398: “Sections 28 through 30 of this act shall take effect January 1, 1986.” [1985 c 398 § 31.]Lake and beach management districts: Chapter 36.61 RCW.

     

     

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees ; Jo Anne Estes

    Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 9:21 AM

    Subject: STATE DIRECTIVE BY WAC 173-26-191

    All,

    I find this unacceptable.

    Directing and identifying how our Clallam County Officials can withhold permits to private property owner’s because the State can not legally or constitutionally regulate our private property at a state level.

    We must question every addition into our revised Clallam County SMP that goes beyond State SMP requirement.

    FYI

    Pearl

    WAC 173-26-191

    Agency filings affecting this section

    Master program contents.

    The results of shoreline planning are summarized in shoreline master program policies that establish broad shoreline management directives. The policies are the basis for regulations that govern use and development along the shoreline. Some master program policies may not be fully attainable by regulatory means due to the constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private property. The policies may be pursued by other means as provided in RCW 90.58.240. Some development requires a shoreline permit prior to construction. A local government evaluates a permit application with respect to the shoreline master program policies and regulations and approves a permit only after determining that the development conforms to them. Except where specifically provided in statute, the regulations apply to all uses and development within shoreline jurisdiction, whether or not a shoreline permit is required, and are implemented through an administrative process established by local government pursuant to RCW 90.58.050 and 90.58.140 and enforcement pursuant to RCW 90.58.210 through 90.58.230.

     ——————————————————————-

     FAILURE TO POST SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: earnest spees

    To: Sheila Roark Miller – DCD Director 2010 ; Steve Gray

    Cc: Karl Spees ; pearl hewett ; Kaj Ahlburg

    Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 11:28 AM

    Subject: Shoreline Advisory Committee Minutes.

     

    Please forward to:

    Margaret Clancy & Jim Kramer

    1.  We would like a copy of the minutes of the first Clallam County Shoreline Advisory Committee.  We need to know if our comments were recorded to our satisfaction or whether we need to resubmit them.

    2.  We were told that we would be given a website with your slides and material used in your presentation. Also a site to submit additional comments.

    It will be good to see the half million +dollars the County has paid ESA Adolfson for the public input and the representation of the Citizens of Clallam County to be well spent.

    Karl Spees – Representative of the CAPR

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————-

    FAILURE TO POST SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Jo Anne Estes ; earnest spees

    Cc: Gray, Steve

    Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 7:39 AM

    Subject: Fw: Shoreline Advisory Committee Minutes.

    JoAnne,

    See below,

    I agree with Karl

    I have emailed comments to Cathy Lear and Margaret Clancy.

    I have questions. The consultants pie charts indicate 65% of Clallam County shorelines are private property?

    When less than 17.1% (or less) of the entire County is private property?

    We have no link to an Advisory Committee comment site.

    We have no link to a public comment site.

    I read the 25 page report of Jefferson County’s public comments on their SMP update, after the fact.

    I want to know what comments are being made about Clallam County’s SMP update and I want to know before the fact.

    Pearl

    Advisory Committee Member

    ————————————————————————————————

    As Members of the Clallam County Shoreline Advisory Committee.

    WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSE Sheila Roark Miller – DCD Director 2010 ; Steve Gray

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees ; pat tenhulzen ; Jo Anne Estes

    Cc: marv chastain

    Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:35 AM

    Subject: All SMP public comments PRIVATE?

    All

    I am working on comments and recommendation to the SMP update.

     Since, all of the SMP public comments are being held private?

     I guess we will have to find a way to make our privatized, public comments PUBLIC?

     Were all of Jefferson County public comments held private until after the fact?

     How can we get a public web site so public comments are made PUBLIC?

     Perhaps we could use WA State Full Disclosure law?

    Pearl

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————-

    I guess we will have to find a way to make our privatized, public comments PUBLIC?

    SO…  I ended up sending this  SMP comments to Jim Jones??

    I had his email address

    UNPOSTED SMP COMMENT

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: jim jones

    Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 1:23 PM

    Subject: TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS

    1. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

    Jim,

    Because you are in a position to influence the outcome of the SMP update and I am both on the Advisory Committee and a private property owner I feel compelled to inform you on issues of concern, not what is spoken at meetings, like last night, but as written comment.

    As Commissioner Doherty  mentioned last night, times are changing.

    I have spent the last three months on line researching, complying and analyzing, statistics, laws, Port Townsend’s SMP update, the 7th revised addition of the WRIA, trespass by WFDW, Pacific Legal foundation, Jefferson County 25 page public comments on their SMP update, noxious weed control and attending public meeting, just to mention a few.

    I felt that both Commissioner Doherty and Shelia we unprepared  for public comment last night.

    The trespass discussed by WDFW was on 4 parcels of Rains Sr. Trust Land.

    The fear of the people on Lake Sutherland was my comment at a Commissioners meeting.

    I found and have been circulating the Oregon taking of property value.

    I will  provide only documented information to you.

    I am passionate about private property and Constitutional rights.

    1. TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS

    Statistics taken from

    Clallam County future land use map

    79.2 % of Clallam County is PUBLIC LAND

    17.1% of Clallam County is PRIVATE PROPERTY

    3.7% other

    79.2%  (or more) of Clallam County is PUBLIC LAND and it’s SHORELINES

    are available for PUBLIC ACCESS.

    My public comment and recommendation  for the SMP update is that no additional private property be taken for PUBLIC SHORELINE  ACCESS.

     Any additional PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS on private property shall be strictly on a volunteer basis and not as a requirement for permits.

    Owning 79.2% of Clallam County, the Olympic National Park, National Forest Lands and the Dept of Natural Resources should be encouraged to provide PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    As Trustee of the George C. Rains Trust

    Private property owner

    Advisory Committee Member

    ————————————————————–

    AND…  I ended up sending this  SMP comments to Jim Jones??

    I had his email address

    ANOTHER UN-POSTED SMP COMMENT

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: jim jones

    Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 1:36 PM

    Subject: WA RCW’S THAT PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

    Jim,

    DCD Sheila Miller suggested that fear of the government may be dispelled by educating.

    Instead of educating fearful Lake Sutherland private property owners, why not help them?

    I researched and found three laws that  protect private property owner.

    3. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

    Any WA State RCW’s that are beneficial to the rights and protection of private property owners should be included in the Clallam County SMP update.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

    LAKE SUTHERLAND

    RCW 90.24.010

    Petition to regulate flow — Order — Exceptions.

    Ten or more owners of real property abutting on a lake may petition the superior court of the county in which the lake is situated, for an order to provide for the regulation of the outflow of the lake in order to maintain a certain water level therein. If there are fewer than ten owners, a majority of the owners abutting on a lake may petition the superior court for such an order. The court, after notice to the department of fish and wildlife and a hearing, is authorized to make an order fixing the water level thereof and directing the department of ecology to regulate the outflow therefrom in accordance with the purposes described in the petition. This section shall not apply to any lake or reservoir used for the storage of water for irrigation or other beneficial purposes, or to lakes navigable from the sea.

    [1999 c 162 § 1; 1985 c 398 § 28; 1959 c 258 § 1; 1939 c 107 § 2; RRS § 7388-1.]Notes:

         Effective date — 1985 c 398: “Sections 28 through 30 of this act shall take effect January 1, 1986.” [1985 c 398 § 31.]Lake and beach management districts: Chapter 36.61 RCW.  

    PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Protection of single family residences

    RCW 90.58.100

     (6) Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall govern the issuance of substantial development permits for shoreline protection, including structural methods such as construction of bulkheads, and nonstructural methods of protection. The standards shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall provide a preference for permit issuance for measures to protect single family residences occupied prior to January 1, 1992, where the proposed measure is designed to minimize harm to the shoreline natural environment.

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

     Unintentionally created “Wetlands”

    RCW 90.58.030

    Definitions and concepts.

     (h) “Wetlands” means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas to mitigate the conversion of wetlands.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    AS Trustee of the George C. Rains Trust

    Private property owner

    Advisory Committee member

    —————————————————————————

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

    Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 10:31 AM

    Subject: Public Meeting on SMP tomorrow

    Hello, everyone~

    As a fellow conservative and defender of property rights, I am calling on you with an urgent request to attend the Clallam County Commissioners meeting tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. when the Shoreline Master Program update will be discussed.  Meeting information can be found at

    http://www.clallam.net/board/assets/applets/monwork.pdf.  This agenda item is planned for 9:45 a.m.

    Any public comment you are willing to provide is greatly appreciated.  Make your voice heard!  Even if you do not wish to comment, plan to attend the meeting to get a first hand view of our county government.

    Thanks for your consideration.

    Jo Anne Estes

    An Advisory Committee member

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: earnest spees

    To: Karl Spees

    Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 9:17 AM

    Subject: Public Meeting on SMP tomorrow!!!!!!!!

    Defenders of Property Rights (Article on A8 in today’s PDN)

    Tomorrow, Monday 2/28/11, there will be a meeting in the commissioners meeting room, Clallam County Courthouse, on the Shoreline Master Program, SMP, Update.

    The meeting is at 0900 (AM) and will allow public input.  Unfortunately this is when most people have jobs and will be working.

    They may be just probing, checking our body temperature, the strength of their opposition to the draconian new rules restricting and regulating use of our private property.  (This may be a classic battle of the  citizens, ‘we the people’ against the big government agenda.)

    Please attend and participate.

    Karl Spees – Pres CAPR 13

    An Advisory Committee member

    —————————————————————————

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees

    Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2011 11:08 AM

    Subject: Re: Public Meeting on SMP tomorrow!!!!!!!!

    Yes, I will be there.

    How did you find out?

    They sure as hell didn’t let me know!

    imagine that?

    Pearl

    An Advisory Committee member

     ————————————————————–

    WE WERE INVITED TO BE ON THE Shoreline Advisory Committee?

    May 05, 2011 10:19 AM, Per Steve Gray we are “NOT” an Advisory Committee we just an “Important work group to provide input”.

    SO WE BECAME THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE Shoreline”Important work group to provide input” Committee.

    FAILURE? Omitting public comments and a failure to provide a complete and accurate

    summary of a Public Meeting

    —– Original Message —–

    Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:19 AM
    Subject: Responsible party
    —————————————–
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
    Regarding the 30 members of  the invited Shoreline Advisory Committee.
    Per Steve Gray we are “NOT” an Advisory Committee we just an “Important work group to provide input”.
    ————————————————
    Am I confused? No, I am insulted.
    ——————————————-
    After reading Hannah’s documented, selectively summarized outcome of the first Advisory Committee meeting,
    ———————————————————–
    it is my personal opinion that we, as a committee are not there to give input, constructive comment, or recommendation,
    we are there to be indoctrinated on compliance, based on misleading pie charts and statistics compiled and presented by ESA Adolfson..
    ——————————————————————–
    Comment by Carol Johnson regarding forest management and a new regulation on the SMP compliance report, she questioned why? The forest Act regulates forestry.
    ———————————————————————
    Comment the  “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of the follow WAC 173-26-191.
    ———————————————————————-

    WAC 173-26-191 Some master program policies may not be fully attainable by regulatory means due to the constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private property. The policies may be pursued by other means as provided in RCW 90.58.240. Some development requires a shoreline permit prior to construction. A local government evaluates a permit application with respect to the shoreline master program policies and regulations and approves a permit only after determining that the development conforms to them.

    Comment by Pearl Hewett, If regulation of private property is unconstitutional or illegal by WA State law Clallam County should NOT use it.


    Comment by Kaj Ahlburg, the WAC’s are more stringent then WA State law.

    The selective summary of the “Our Important work group to provide input” at the first meeting, did not mention any of these comments.
    I called Commissioner Mike Chapman.
    Who is responsible? The elected DCD Sheila Rourk Miller.
    Sheila went on vacation on April 26, 2011 the day after the 4C public meeting and will not be back in her office until Monday May 9, 2011.
    I called today and left a message, asking for a meeting with her.
    Pearl
    —————————————————————————-

    UNPOSTED SMP   PUBLIC COMMENTS on NO NET LOSS

     —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

    To: Merrill, Hannah ; Gray, Steve

    Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 12:07 PM

    Subject: What is No Net Loss Workgroup?

    Hello Hannah and Steve:

    I saw this Notice on the Clallam County Website:

    Thursday:  August 18, 2011 – No Net Loss Work Group , Clallam County BOCC Room 160, 223 East Fourth Street, Port Angeles, 10a.m.-2:00 p.m.

    Is this something either of you are leading?  If not, please forward my email to the correct person. I could not make the meeting yesterday.

    Could you please forward me all copies of the meeting agendas and minutes to date for this group?  I would like to gather this as soon as possible so I can get up to speed.

    Do you know if the Shoreline Advisory Committee been tasked with participating with the No Net Loss workgroup?  If so, I do not recall getting notice.  Please add my email address to the distribution list for all minutes and agendas of the No Net Loss workgroup.

    Thanks very much.  Have a great weekend!

    Jo Anne Estes

    —————————————————————————————————–

    As Members of the Clallam County Shoreline Advisory Committee.

    WE WERE NOT RECEIVING ANY RESPONSES FROM

    Sheila Roark Miller – DCD Director 2010 ; Steve Gray

    SO,  I did respond to Jo Anne Estes (a member of the Shoreline Advisory Committee)

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Jo Anne Estes

    Cc: earnest spees

    Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 12:54 PM

    Subject: Re: What is No Net Loss Workgroup?

    Jo Anne,

    When people asked about the NO NET LOSS at the public SMP meeting after our Aug.committee meeting (only 16 people showed up) I asked about the no net loss committee? Who are they? They have had only 1 meeting?  Steve Grey admitted, they had only had one meeting. I fear they are from the appointed 9 in the Planning Dept.? Steve did not identify them.

    Your letter to the PDN was good. Unfortunately too many people have taken the “Wait and see what they do attitude”

    Then, they will start screaming and yelling, after the fact!

    You are correct when you say we, as private property owners, are not represented proportionally on the SMP update committee. In fact we are not represented PERIOD.  Remember the meeting we attended at the Audubon.

    I have emailed, questioned, complained, bitched, requested info, made comments, spoken out at public meetings, been ignored when I raised my hand at the John Wayne Marina Public Forum, sent many DOE, Clallam County maps with their statistics  documenting their errors and omissions

     (August 19, 2011)  AND have yet to received a single response from the Planning Dept, Sheila, Hannah and Steve Grey do not respond.

    The committee members comments are not put on line as we were told they would be?

    Are we just, the required by LAW invited?

     Does anything we do have any effect on the outcome?

     Are our comments even given to the Appointed 9?

    FYI

    ESA Adolfson completed a report on Puget Sound for the National Fish and Wildlife Federation in WA DC prior to our Jan 26, 2011 SMP meeting.

    Keep up the good work,

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Disappointed member of the Clallam County Invited SMP

    Update NOT Citizens Advisory Committee.

    ———————————————————————–

    The bottom line

    AND,  Failure to  ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION

    Sent: Tuesday,  8:48 AM 2011

    THEY want us to be upset and discouraged, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested I should/could  QUIT.

    Ironically, Commissioner Mike Chapman suggested just weeks earlier, somewhat sarcastically, that if I did not like the way things were going I should participate by volunteering to be on the SMP Update Citizens Advisory Committee.

    Hmmm? May 10, 2011 Commissioner Mike Chapman suggests that  if I do not like the way things are  going

    I should/could  QUIT.

    Don’t let life discourage you; everyone who got where she is had to begin where she was.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

     


  • Living in Law-Law Land?

    Living in Law- Law Land?

    LIVING IN WA STATE LAW-LAW,  LA-LA LAND?

    Definition of LA-LA LAND from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, a euphoric dreamlike mental state DETACHED FROM THE HARSHER REALITIES OF LIFE.

    ——————————————————————————————

    WHO’S? LEGISLATING IN WA STATE  LAW- LAW, LA-LA  LAND?

    WOW, 107 LEGISLATORS /LAWMAKERS HAVE INTRODUCED 2,200 LAWMAKING MEASURES?

    The Washington State Legislature is a bicameral body with 49 members in the Senate and 98 members in the House of Representatives.

    ——————————————–

    From: WashingtonVotes.org News <wavotes@wavotes.org>
    Date: Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 3:32 PM

    On this 33rd day of this year’s 105-day legislative session, lawmakers have introduced more than 2,200 measures

    ———————————————————————————————————–

    WHO’S VOTING on more than 2,200 measures  IN LAW- LAW, LA-LA LAND?

    our  147 WA State elected representative (aka our 147 public servants)

    How many of the 147 legislators are  detached from the harsher realities of life, and legislating in a euphoric dreamlike mental state?

    ————————————————————————————————————-

    These 147 legislators took an oath of office, to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION,

     NOT TO “HOLD US UP”  

    by legislating and dumping more taxes and 2200 more lawmaking measures  on the already beleaguered WA STATE AMERICAN TAXPAYING CITIZENS.

    —————————————————————————

    How Stupid do these WA STATE  LAW- LAW, LA-LA  legislators  think we are?

    Do they think, American Citizens ARE SO Stupid, WE LACK COMPREHENSION  AND WE ARE TOO DUMB TO FIGURE OUT WHAT’S GOING ON?

    Behind My Back | By Hook or By Crook

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/16/by-hook-or-by-crook/

    Oct 16, 2013 – Suggestion number one is that ‘by hook or by crook‘ derives from the custom in mediaeval England of ALLOWING PEASANTS TO TAKE FROM …

    ————————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | Fee Fie Foe Fum

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/26/feefiefoe-fum/

    Oct 26, 2013 – FEE, FEE? FIE, FIE? FOE, FOE? FUM? (By archaic definition and word origin) EVEN IN ARCHAIC … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feefiefoe-fum.

    ————————————————————————

    ONE EXAMPLE (from an email)

    To a WA State Representative,

    You went on air and essentially referred to taxpayers of this state as children who need you to make decisions for them; that even when those decisions were unpopular, they were still the right decision.

    Your ill-spoken comments are offensive.  How dare you insinuate that you know better than the hard-working people of this state, what they need.  How dare you insinuate these people are children who need your guidance on what is best.  How insulting, how offensive, how demeaning.  You are obviously on a power trip that serves not one taxpayer of this state well.

    —————————————————————————————-

    How Stupid do these WA STATE  LAW- LAW, LA-LA  legislators  think we are?

    Do they think, American Citizens ARE SO Stupid, WE LACK COMPREHENSION  AND WE ARE TOO DUMB TO FIGURE OUT WHAT’S GOING ON?

    How Stupid ARE THESE WA STATE  LAW- LAW, LA-LA  legislators?  

    Full Definition of STUPID

    from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

    slow of mind

    given to unintelligent decisions or acts

    acting in an unintelligent or careless manner

    lacking intelligence or reason

    dulled in feeling or sensation

    marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting

    lacking interest or point

    —————————————————————————

    How uninformed are the voters that voted for them, and elected them?

    HOW STUPID ARE THE WA STATE VOTERS THAT ELECTED THEM?

    —————————————————————————————-

    A full Synonym Discussion of STUPID

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stupid

    stupid, dull, dense, crass, dumb, mean lacking in power to absorb ideas or impressions stupid implies a slow-witted or dazed state of mind that may be either congenital or temporary <stupid students just keeping the seats warm> <stupid with drink>.dull, suggests a slow or sluggish mind such as results from disease, depression, or shock <monotonous work that leaves the mind dull>. dense implies a thickheaded imperviousness to ideas <too dense to take a hint>. crass suggests a grossness of mind precluding discrimination or delicacy <a crass, materialistic people>. dumb, applies to an exasperating obtuseness or LACK OF COMPREHENSION <TOO DUMB TO FIGURE OUT WHAT’S GOING ON>.

     


  • SMP Public Comment # 160

    SMP Public Comment # 160

    SMP Public Comment # 160

    Clallam County SMP Update

    Public Participation Strategy Process Goals and Objectives

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Moving forward, this documented,  SMP Public Comment on Public Participation Strategy Process Goals and Objectives is crucial to  future decision making by our newly elected Department of Community Development (DCD) Director, Mary Ellen Winborn.  And, the two (2) Clallam County Commissioner, Jim McEntire and Bill Peach, that were not in office  during the following documented events.

    CW 90.58.130 is the law on SMP Public Participation (full text below)

    Clallam County Shoreline Master Program

    Commissioners approved a “PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY” for the SMP Update in March of 2010 a 16 page document (Who? Where citizens involved in creating this document?)

    PDN Article published Dec 14, 2010
    Clallam shoreline update could bring new curbs to development, commissioners told

    ——————————————————————————————————–

    Clallam County PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY approved March 2010

    3.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GOALS

    Clallam County recognizes that early and continuous public participation is critical to the update

    —————————————————-

    Table 1 – Public Participation Process Goals and Objectives

    1. BE TRANSPARENT AND INCLUSIVE.

    Approved March of 2010? TEN months later? Jan 26, 2011 Clallam County SMP,  THE FIRST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETING,  ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY WAS HELD?

    ———————————————————————————–

    I was invited Jan 26, 2011 and did attend as Trustee of the George C. Rains Sr. Estate.

    Prior to the meeting, I did a background check on ESA Adolfson, consultant Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer.

    It was presented by ESA  Adolfson paid Consultant Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer

    No Clallam County elected representatives attended this meeting.

    Thirty (30) people were invited to this public, by invitation, only meeting.

    Word got around and sixty (60) concerned citizens showed up. (standing room only)

     SMP Public Comment #30  011811 – DJones – G

    —————————————————————————

    From: Darlene Jones

    Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 4:23 PM

    To: Recipient list suppressed

    Cc: Merrill, Hannah

    Subject: Shoreline Master Program

    I received a phone call today reporting that a man is going around Lake Sutherland taking photos of the docks. His response was that it is for the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update.

    There will be a SMP Focus Group Discussion on Wednesday, January 26, 2011

    from 5:30 – 7:00 p.m. at Vern Burton Community Center. The meeting will be facilitated by the County’s consultants on this project, Jim Kramer and Carol MacIlroy.

    Last week I received a flyer in the mail from Clallam County announcing the meeting.

    Contact info:Hannah Merrill, Clallam County Planner SMP@co.clallam.wa.us

    The flyer states, “We want to get some early input from you about the existing and future uses of our county’s shorelines

    At this point I have no opinion of the process or expected outcome. This email is merely to be sure you know about the meeting and where to get more information. …

    ———————————————————————————————

    Who are these ESA Adolfson, paid consultants, Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer?

    The background check, I did prior to the January 26, 2011 meeting, on ESA Adolfson consultants, Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer disclosed the following.

    “Opportunities to improve shoreline management in Puget Sound”

    Jun 2, 2010 – Jim Kramer. Carol MacIlroy. Margaret Clancy ( ESA Adolfson). Prepared for: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

    MARGARET CLANCY, ESA project manager, has helped other jurisdictions, INCLUDING JEFFERSON COUNTY, update their own plans. CLANCY WAS JOINED BY FELLOW CONSULTANTS JIM KRAMER AND ANN SEITER

    ———————————————————————————–

    During the  Jan 26, 2011 meeting a question was asked of the ESA consultants.

    How long have you been working on this?

    Jim Kramer’s answer was

    “A couple of months”

    After the meeting, I confronted ESA SMP Facilitator Jim Kramer in the hall,  and asked him why he didn’t tell the truth?

    He just shrugged and basically said… What difference does it make… and walked away.

    ————————————————————————————-

     Table 1 – Public Participation Process Goals and Objectives

    1. BE TRANSPARENT and inclusive To ensure that public input is incorporated into the decision-making process. Respond to input that is received and demonstrate the use of public comment.

    Thirty (30) people were invited to this public, by invitation, only meeting.Word got around, No doubt From: The email Darlene Jones Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 4:23 PM To: Recipient list suppressed.

    About sixty (60) concerned citizens showed up. (standing room only)

    Eight or ten uninvited property owners  from Lake Sutherland showed up and made comments and asked questions of concern about how the 200′ SMP setbacks would affect their lake front property. (there are 300 privately owned shoreline homes Lake Sutherland)

    ————————————————————–

     Later, I asked the county for, and received the sign in sheet for the Jan 26, 2011 meeting.

    There was not one Lake Sutherland property owner on the sign in sheet.

    After that, I asked for and received the summary of the Jan 26, 2011 meeting, prepared by the ESA facilitators /consultants. THERE WAS NOT ONE WORD OR REFERENCE TO THE LAKE SUTHERLAND PROPERTY OWNER THAT ATTENDED THE MEETING OR THEIR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS.

     Snippet, Question/topic of the ESA facilitators /consultants Jan 26, 2011 meeting.

    *WHAT WOULD INSPIRE YOU TO PARTICIPATE IN CLALLAM COUNTY’S EFFORT TO PROTECT PRIVATE USE OF LAND?

    —————————————————————————————–

    WHAT WOULD INSPIRE ME?

     In fact, I was so inspired, I went to a Clallam County Commissioners meeting and made a comment. Documented below.

    Clallam County shoreline update draws fears, criticism …

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/…/30202999…

    Peninsula Daily News

    Feb 1, 2011 – About PDN … Clallam County shoreline update draws fears, criticism; … Shoreline Master Program update, e-mail SMP@co.clallam.wa.us, …

    Pearl Rains Hewett, who attended a Jan. 26 forum, said some citizens were fearful over what the update will mean to them.

    ————————————————————————-

    Today is Feb 11, 2015 I am requesting a publically disclosed report and evaluation on the Clallam County public participation process from (DCD) Director Mary Ellen Winborn.  And, Clallam County Commissioner, Jim McEntire and Bill Peach.

    To monitor the effectiveness of public participation efforts, to date,  on the SMP Update.

    AND, TO DEMONSTRATE A THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF ISSUES BY PROVIDING INFORMATION AND FINDINGS.

    To provide our current elected representative, with an opportunity to respond to this question.  Has  the full intent and purpose of the March 2010 Clallam County SMP Update Public Participation Strategy Process, Goals and Objectives been met?

    —————————————————————————————

    Clallam County Shoreline PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY March 2010

    Table 1 – Public Participation Process Goals and Objectives

    1. BE TRANSPARENT and inclusive To ensure that PUBLIC INPUT is incorporated into the decision-making process. Respond to input that is received and demonstrate the use of public comment.

     3.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GOALS

    CLALLAM COUNTY recognizes that early and continuous public participation is critical to the update and ultimately successful implementation of the SMP. all public outreach and public events related to SMP development will be documented.

     7. EVALUATE THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THE PROGRAM. Use tools to monitor the effectiveness of public participation efforts

    ——————————————————————————————–

    Clallam County Shoreline Master Program

    PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    A 16 page document

    3.0 Public Participation Goals ..

    4.1 Phase I – Public Participation Program ..

    6.0 Public Involvement Strategies ……………..

    6.1 Technical and Policy Advisor Groups ………..

    6.2 Shoreline Property Owners …………………

    6.3 Speaker Bureau …………………………..

    6.4 Written Comments …………………………

    6.5 Other Public Involvement Strategies ………..

    7.0 Public Notices and Information Dissemination ..

     

    Page 3 of 16

    This Public Participation Strategy

    describes the steps that Clallam County will take to involve the community in decisions regarding the SMP update. The goal is to provide the public with timely information, an understanding of the process, and opportunities to review and comment on update decisions before they are made. Clallam County views this Public Participation Strategy  as establishing the basic public involvement processes that will be utilized during the SMP Update Program. Other public participation activities may be put into practice without changing the plan.

    Page 5 of 16

    Update of the shoreline master program will include several steps, each of which will

    require providing the public with information and receiving their input.

    3.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GOALS

    CLALLAM COUNTY RECOGNIZES THAT EARLY AND CONTINUOUS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IS CRITICAL TO THE UPDATE and ultimately successful implementation of the SMP. All public outreach and public events related to SMP development will be documented.

    Table 1 – Public Participation Process Goals and Objectives

    GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

    1. Be transparent and inclusive. To ensure that public input is incorporated into the decision-making process. Respond to input that is received and demonstrate the use of public comment.

    2. Identify the most effective opportunities for public participation Provide public input opportunities at project milestones, prior to decision-making To ensure the optimum use of the public’s time on issues of greatest concern

    3. Actively involve and encourage participation of all persons and entities having interest and means (RCW 90.58.103) early in the process, with continued communication and feedback

    throughout the process. Make a special effort to reach the under-represented

    communities/stakeholders

    Broadly and regularly disseminate SMP materials and meetings notices, and seek written and verbal input at the same intervals (RCW 36.70A.140; WAC 365-195-600) Use tools that enable people with different learning styles to be informed and participate Provide the public with a range of input opportunities.

    4. Coordinate the SMP Update Program with cities (Port Angeles; Sequim; Forks) efforts. Identify opportunities to coordinate messages and materials. Share Program schedules, meeting agendas, and feedback received with cities.

    5. Consult and consider recommendations from state-wide agencies and tribes, particularly with regard to resources and/or shorelines of statewide-significance. Provide special briefings and review opportunities to these “KEY” parties (WAC 173-26-251).

    6. Promote an understanding about the SMP Update requirements. ESTABLISH A STRATEGY TO EDUCATE KEY PARTIES about the SMP Update process and requirements

    DEMONSTRATE A THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF ISSUES BY PROVIDING INFORMATION AND FINDINGS.

    7. Evaluate the public participation process throughout the life of the Program. Use tools to monitor the effectiveness of public participation efforts

    8. Coordinate and consolidate public participation requirements with the SEPA environmental review process. Implement a public participation plan that expands upon SEPA requirements.

    —————————————————————————

    JAN 26, 2011  Clallam County SMP  THE FIRST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETING,  ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY WAS HELD?

    ———————————————–

    MARCH OF 2010 Rememberthat date? Commissioners approved a PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY for the update

    Jan 2011, The ESA flyer states, “We want to get some ‘EARLY’ input from you about the existing and future uses of our county’s shorelines

    ————————————————–

    DECEMBER 5, 2009

    HOW COULD THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ALREADY HAVE AN SMP  PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY?

    http://www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/1_SMP120509.pdf

    SMP Update Public Comment #1

    CLALLAM COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE

    THEREFORE be it resolved that the Clallam County Democratic Central Committee appoint a subcommittee of interested members to monitor the progress of the Shoreline Management Plan review, to suggest to the Central Committee communications to the county ofthe concerns or interests of Democrats in the elements of the plans and any proposed amendments, and to issue quarterly reports on the review process to the Central Committee.

    ————————————————————————————————–

    WHO IN CLALLAM COUNTY GOVERNMENT DETERMINED THE “EARLY” NOTIFICATION PRIORITIES FOR THE SMP PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY?

    WHO WAS NOTIFIED EARLY? AND WHO DECIDED TO EDUCATE “KEY” PARTIES AND PROVIDE SPECIAL BRIEFINGS?

    DECEMBER 5, 2009 THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ALREADY HAD AN SMP STRATEGY?

    SMP Comments 2009-2010

    2009:

    2010:

     

    ————————————————-

    THIS IS THE LAW FULL TEXT RCW 90.58.130

    the law on SMP Public Participation

    Involvement of all persons and entities having interest, means

    To insure that all persons and entities having an interest in the guidelines and master programs developed under this chapter are provided with a full opportunity for involvement in both their development and implementation, the department and local governments SHALL:

    (1) Make reasonable efforts to inform the people of the state about the shoreline management program of this chapter and in the performance of the responsibilities provided in this chapter, shall not only invite but actively encourage participation by all persons and private groups and entities showing an interest in shoreline management programs of this chapter; and

    (2) Invite and encourage participation by all agencies of federal, state, and local government, including municipal and public corporations, having interests or responsibilities relating to the shorelines of the state. State and local agencies are directed to participate fully to insure that their interests are fully considered by the department and local governments.

    [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 13.]

    ————————————————————————————

    The bottom line

    Today is Feb 11, 2015 I am requesting a publically disclosed report and evaluation on the Clallam County Public Participation and Strategy process from (DCD) Director Mary Ellen Winborn.  And, Clallam County Commissioner, Jim McEntire and Bill Peach.

    To monitor the effectiveness of public participation efforts, to date,  on the SMP Update.

    To provide our current elected representative, with an opportunity to respond to this question.  Has  the full intent and purpose of the March 2010 Clallam County SMP Update Public Participation Strategy Process, Goals and Objectives been met?


  • High, Dry and Destitute

    High,  Dry and Destitute

    WA State citizens, private property owners and farmers, in Skagit and Clallam County have been left HIGH, DRY AND DESTITUTE by WA State DOE WATER RULES.

    DESTITUTE  by definition, WITHOUT THE BASIC NECESSITIES OF LIFE.

    Our Elected Representative “MUST” Legalize Citizen’s Water Rights.

    Water, is our lifeblood. It is used to grow food and to grow cities. It provides power to run our homes, factories, and businesses.

    PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL WA STATE ENTITIES CONCERNED WITH CITIZENS WATER RIGHTS

    Our WA State elected legislators need to hear how Ecology’s Destitute/Destitution is impacting your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, in the United States of America.

    DESTITUTE,  by definition, WITHOUT THE BASIC NECESSITIES OF LIFE.

    DESTITUTION, by definition poverty so extreme that one lacks the means to provide for oneself.

    ——————————————————————————-

    Our Elected Representative MUST Legalize Citizen’s Water Rights,

    OR, THEY SHALL  leave our DESTITUTE  private property owners, citizens, no choice, but to continue to “duke it out”  in court with EXPENSIVE CITIZEN FUNDED LAWSUITS against the WA State DOE.

    If you have not signed the petition requesting the Washington State Legislature to provide the Skagit Watershed with water, please do!  They are seeing the signatures and reading your comments.

     —– Original Message —–

    From: Zachary Barborinas

    The Department of Ecology is tasked to regulate water for ALL citizens of the state and they have not done their job. Rural farmers and landowners need legislative action to reinstate basic legal access to water to ease the economic hardships and uncertainty before them because of this unconstitutional action. 

    For those of you unable to make it, please provide comments for the Legislature so they see these bills are supported.  They need to hear about how this is impacting you!

    ——————————————————————————————–

    Ecology’s Skagit and Dungeness Water Rule

    They need to hear about how this is impacting you!

    WA State Legislated Intent?

    Posted on March 21, 2013 1:02 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    ——————————————————————–

    An introduction to a series by Pearl Rains Hewett
    Deprived Of Our Water

    Posted on February 13, 2013 12:35 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    DEPRIVED OF OUR WATER RIGHTS AND OUR RIGHT TO WATER

    An introduction to a series by Pearl Rains Hewett
    “behindmyback.org” – CLOUDED WATERS

    DEPRIVED OF OUR WATER
    BY THE APPOINTED FEDERAL – STATE AGENCIES – TRIBAL TREATY -TAPPED
    This series of on the taking and depravation of our water rights will report, document and expose the many ways we the people are being deprived not only of our water right, but to our right to water.

    —————————————————————-

    WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY (DOE)
    It will examine and document the many parts that appointed State agencies, the WA State DOE specifically plays in the deprivation of our water private and riparian rights in Counties in WA State. It will question both the DUE PROCESS of LAW and competency of the WA State DOE in creating and imposing and the WA Rules in WA State. The topics of DOE coerced monopoly and Commodity trading will also be discussed

    THE DUNGENESS WATER RULE
    Any and all OTHER related documented information that fit under this category and have previously been posted on “behindmyback.org”

    PUBLIC COMMENT
    It will address the documents the nearly 1000 public comments sent to the WA State DOE on the Dungeness Water Rule from the people of Clallam County and the mote effective that those comments had on the decision of the DOE Appointed State Agency. Why did we bother with nearly 1000 comments? When all we got back was 525 pages of response from DOE and no change in The Dungeness Water Rule.

    —————————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | “Ecology Sucks”

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/04/15/ecologysucks/

    Apr 15, 2013 – “Ecology Sucks” And, the rest of the story. The local news papers did report that I said it. WHAT THE LOCAL NEWSPAPERS DID NOT REPORT …

    —————————————————————————————-

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Zachary Barborinas

    There is a long road ahead, but only our continued pressure will get us closer to a solution

    Furthermore, if you have not signed the petition requesting the Washington State Legislature to provide the Skagit Watershed with water, please do!  They are seeing the signatures and reading your comments.

    SB 5129 – Concerning overriding considerations of the public interest in management of the waters of the state.

    SB 5135 – Ensuring that certain existing water uses are not subject to interruption.

    SB 5136 – Repealing an instream flow rule and adopting a new instream flow rule.

    SB 5491 – Maintaining reservations of water for certain future uses.

    Petitioning Washington State House and 15 others

    This petition will be delivered to:

    Washington State House

    Washington State Senate

    Washington Governor

    District 40

    Senator Kevin Ranker

    District 40

    Rep. Kristine Lytton

    District 40

    Rep. Jeff Morris

    District 10

    Senator Barbara Bailey

    District 10

    Rep. Norma Smith

    District 10

    Rep. Dave Hayes

    District 39

    Senator Kirk Pearson

    District 39

    Rep. Dan Kristiansen

    District 39

    Rep. Elizabeth Scott

    District 42

    Senator Doug Ericksen

    District 42

    Rep. Jason Overstreet

    District 42

    Rep. Vincent Buys

    Governor Inslee’s Chief of Staff

    Joby Shimonmura

    Washington State Legislature: Provide Water for Rural Landowners in Skagit Watershed

    Zachary Barborinas

    United States

    Legal access to well water has been eliminated for rural farmers and landowners in the Skagit River Basin, the 3rd largest watershed on the West Coast. A result so unbalanced and scientifically unsupported amongst our abundant resources, it has left over 6,000 landowners without any legal source of water, including 475 homes already built and occupied. The Department of Ecology is tasked to regulate water for ALL citizens of the state and they have not done their job. Rural farmers and landowners need legislative action to reinstate basic legal access to water to ease the economic hardships and uncertainty before them because of this unconstitutional action.

    Please help support rural farmers and landowners by signing this petition. You will be asking Washington state legislators to legislatively amend the 2001 Instream Flow Rule to provide water to 6,000 rural citizens in the Skagit Watershed.

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Zachary Barborinas

    To: Skagit Watershed

    Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 11:45 AM

    Subject: Senate Hearing for Skagit Watershed

    Yesterday’s Senate hearing provided a tremendous opportunity to see support from many different perspectives. Thank you to everyone that were able to make it to Olympia. There is a long road ahead, but only our continued pressure will get us closer to a solution. For those of you unable to make it, please provide comments for the Legislature so they see these bills are supported.  They need to hear about how this is impacting you!

    1. SB 5129 – Concerning overriding considerations of the public interest in management of the waters of the state.
    2. SB 5131 – Concerning the Skagit instream flow rule.
    3. SB 5407 – Concerning existing lots and the Skagit instream flow rule.
    4. SB 5134 – Concerning base flows and minimum instream flows.
    5. SB 5135 – Ensuring that certain existing water uses are not subject to interruption.
    6. SB 5136 – Repealing an instream flow rule and adopting a new instream flow rule.
    7. SB 5491 – Maintaining reservations of water for certain future uses.

     

    Furthermore, if you have not signed the petition requesting the Washington State Legislature to provide the Skagit Watershed with water, please do!  They are seeing the signatures and reading your comments.

    Have a good weekend!  Go Hawks!

    Regards,

    Zachary J. Barborinas

    Just Water Alliance

    www.justwateralliance.org

     


  • No Trespass on Private Property

    Criminal Trespass on Private Property?

    House Bill 1375: Concerning criminal trespass on private property
    Introduced by Rep. David Taylor (Moxee) (R) on January 19, 2015, For Bill Information, please click HERE.

    It is the intent of the legislature to eliminate special immunities from prosecution for trespass, whether those immunities have been legislatively granted to the government or to private persons or entities.

     Keep reading, you’ll love it…

    —————————————————————————————

    http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=166654

    HOUSE BILL 1375(A 76 page document)

    State of Washington

    64th Legislature

    2015 Regular Session

    By Representatives Taylor, Scott, Young, G. Hunt, Shea, and Buys

    Read first time 01/19/15. Referred to Committee on State Government

    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

    NEW SECTION.

    Sec. 1.

    The legislature declares that the people of this state have a right to a reasonable expectation of privacy on their private property.

    ——————————–

    snippet from

    Presumed to be Constitutional?

    Posted on October 21, 2014 7:57 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

     (read more at behindmyback.org)

    This is WA State Law RCW 77.12.154

    WA State law RCW77.12.154
    WDFW employees may enter upon ANY LAND or waters and remain there while performing their duties without liability for trespass.

    ———————————————

    House Bill 1375

    The legislature finds, however, that over time statutory authority for entry onto private property HAS EXPANDED TO THE POINT WHERE THE PEOPLE NO LONGER FEEL SECURE from the unreasonable intrusion of government officials and others who have been granted special immunity from prosecution for trespass.

    ———————————–

    snippet from Presumed to be Constitutional

    These “STATE  EMPLOYEES” may enter upon “ANY LAND” or waters and remain there while performing their duties without liability for trespass.

    THINK ABOUT THIS?

    When They Came In WA. State

    This is  PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL BY THE AG

    You live in an isolated area…. on 20 acres of private property…you are home alone…. you are a senior citizen… your husband is gone….you look out your kitchen window…… there is a strange man walking around in your back yard…. he has walked several blocks into your private property, on your private road…
    With your husband gone…. what should you do?

    IT HAPPENED TO MY (removed for privacy)   WHAT DID SHE DO?

    SHE OWNS A GUN…

    She went outside and confronted the TRESPASSER. “This is private property” “What are you doing here?”

    The strangers response (he did not identify himself) was “I just wanted to see where this stream came from.”

    She told him, “This is private property” and asked him to get off of her land.

    So if you see some unknown guy, anytime, anywhere, A TOTAL stranger wandering around and trespassing IN YOUR BACKYARD, on your private property?

    Without your permission, without probable cause and without a search warrant?

    WHAT WILL YOU DO?

    ————————————————–

    House Bill 1375

    The legislature further finds that this unnecessary erosion of the right of privacy creates dangerous tension between the people of the state and their government and jeopardizes the orderly resolution of issues.

    The legislature intends, with certain limited and necessary exceptions, that all persons, whether government employees or private persons, be made subject to the same restrictions with regard to entering upon the property of another. It is the intent of the legislature to eliminate special immunities from prosecution for trespass, whether those immunities have been legislatively granted to the government or to private persons or entities.

    —————————————-

    (5) “Enters or remains unlawfully.” A person “enters or remains unlawfully” in or upon premises when he or she is not then licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to so enter or remain or unless notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner.

    ———————————-

    A license or privilege to enter or remain on improved and apparently used land that is open to the public at particular times, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner to exclude intruders, IS NOT A LICENSE OR PRIVILEGE TO ENTER OR REMAIN ON THE LAND

     read the complete text at..

    http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=166654

    HOUSE BILL 1375 (A 76 page document)

     


  • Water Out of DOE Control?

    Who’s in and Who’s out  of Water  Power?

    NEWS FLASH January 15, 2015 ECOLOGY’S WATER RULERS  document in a letter, that, THEY ARE POWER-LESS, RULE-LESS, TOOL-LESS,  INEFFECTIVE? AND INADEQUATE?

     “Under current law, Ecology has no rule making tools that would allow us to adequately protect instream resources and effectively make water available for new year-round consumptive uses in the Skagit Basin.”

     ———————————————————————————————————————

    WHY IS WA STATE ECOLOGY (DOE) POWERLESS?

    IT’S COMPLICATED, GREAT QUESTION, GLAD YOU ASKED

    I once received a response from WA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BOB FERGUSON

    The response, ABOUT WATER, was ? IT’S COMPLICATED

    COMPLICATED by definition,  difficult to understand, deal with, or explain

    1. A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD BE INCAPABLE OF  UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFICULTY OF IT?

    2. That the issues of the problems are too difficult to deal with?

    3. That the issues of the problems are too difficult to explain?

     I MUST BE A  REALLY UNREASONABLE PERSON (I posted this in response)

    Everything is too Complicated

    Posted on February 17, 2014 12:57 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett

    —————————————————————————————

    HOW COMPLICATED ARE THE IN’S AND OUT’S OF WATER CONTROL?

    This short form IS NOT in chronological order

    The individual States own all of their water?

    BUT THE  FEDS CONTROL all of the  water?

    Congress Acts? The Clean Water Act

    The Clean Water Act was linked  to,  the Endangered Species Act,

    Which in turn, was  linked to the Boldt decision,

    Which in turn, was  linked to first right of WATER for tribes,

    Which in turn was  linked to the  taking of WATER  FOR FISH BEFORE PEOPLE,

    Which in turn was  linked to the feds giving ownership of the water to the individual states

    Which in turn was  linked to Ecology’s state water rulers

    Which in turn was  linked to Ecology’s taking of water from a multitude of private property owners.

    Which in turn was  linked to a multitude of objections, appeals,  lawsuits, and repeals.

    Which in turn was  linked to  Ecology letter, January 15, 2015,  in  response to the Petition to Repeal the 2001 Instream Flow Rule

     Which in turn was  linked to  Ecology letter “Under current law, Ecology has no rule making tools that would allow us to adequately protect instream resources and effectively make water available for new year-round consumptive uses in the Skagit Basin.”

    Which in turn was  linked to  the Jan 17, 2015 posting of The Ins and Outs of Water Control

    Which in turn was  linked to  the NEWS FLASH on ECOLOGY’S WATER RULERS  document in a letter, that, THEY ARE POWER-LESS, RULE-LESS, TOOL-LESS,  INEFFECTIVE? AND INADEQUATE?

    ——————————————————————-

    (I wouldn’t even support a man in that condition) Sorry, I just can’t help myself

    ———————————————————————————————

    WHO HAS THE POWER TO CONTROL ALL WATER?

    MOTHER NATURE…

    ———————————————————-

    IT’S COMPLICATED

    WHO? WHEN? WHERE? WHY? AND WHAT? IS  REALLY  IN CONTROL? AND CONTROLLING AMERICA’S WATER?   OUR ELECTED CONGRESS? GOVERNING?, THE APPOINTED, GOVERNMENT AGENCY, TRIBAL TREATY? THE TRIBES? THE FISH? THE EPA? SUPPORTED BY THE NGO SELFIES, AKA WATER WITCHES?

    ————————————————————————

    I HAVE A REALLY BIG PROBLEM WITH ECOLOGY AND OUR WA STATE LEGISLATORS

    THEY LEGISLATED THE POWER TO ECOLOGY TO RULE AND TAKE OUR WATER

    which in turn was  linked to Ecology’s state water rulers

    which in turn was  linked to Ecology’s taking of water from a multitude of private property owners.

    AND THE ALL POWERFUL ECOLOGY HAS RUN AMOK EVER SINCE,  RULING, AND TAKING, AND TAKING, AND RESTRICTING, AND DENYING US WATER

    which in turn was  linked to a multitude of objections, appeals,  lawsuits, and repeals.

    AND WHAT HAVE OUR ELECTED WA STATE LEGISLATORS DONE TO CORRECT THE WATER DEBACLE  THEY LEGISLATED?

    AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE

    Which in turn was  linked to  the Jan 17, 2015 posting of The In’s and Out’s of Water Control

    documentation below

    BACK TO THE TOP

    From: Zachary Barborinas

    To: Skagit Watershed

    Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 2:29 PM

    Subject: Skagit Watershed: Ecology Petition Denied

    The Department of Ecology has responded to the Petition to Repeal the 2001 Instream Flow Rule. Not surprisingly, they have denied the request (see attached). Ecology agrees that a plain reading of the rule only requires mitigation at the main stem gauge, but as expected, cautions such a reading could result in litigation.  And perhaps my favorite part of their response:

    “Under current law, Ecology has no rule making tools that would allow us to adequately protect instream resources and effectively make water available for new year-round consumptive uses in the Skagit Basin.”

    Once again, the Legislature must engage this situation since the managers of our water cannot find a solution in the third largest watershed on the west coast.  The Petitioners will be meeting in the days ahead to discuss their next step.

    Have a good weekend.

    Regards,

    Zachary J. Barborinas

    Just Water Alliance

    www.justwateralliance.org

     


  • SMP Public Comment (159)

    SMP Public Comment (159)

    Clallam County Planning Commission

    Public Forums

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Clallam County Planning Commission, for recognizing the need for this additional  step in the SMP Update  process, and voting to provide the public forums  for us.

    I have appreciation and  respect for the dedicated members of Planning Commission that made the (4) regional, informal, public forums a reality. The choice of evening forums, and  having the presenters go to meeting at the four locations, allowed working people to attend.

    ——————————————————————————–

    I did attend two public forums

    Jan. 8, 2015 Port Angeles Public Forum

    The presentation was well done and applauded

    Jan 14, 2015 Sequim Public Forum

    Was a mini- presentation

    ————————————————————————–

    Jan. 8, 2015 Public Forum at the PA Senior Center

    It was very encouraging to see our New County Commissioner Bill Peach, our new DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn, members of the Clallam County Planning Commission and Home Rule Charter Commission  in attendance. It is vital to have our local representative, Involved in, listening to public questions, comments and the many concerns of our local citizens on the SMP Update.

    ————————————————————————————————–

    WE HAVE LOTS OF CONCERNS

    OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS  LOTS OF OPTIONS

    ———————————————————

    ONE EXAMPLE CONSIDER THE LOCAL OPTIONS FOR SHORELAND AREAS …..

    SMP handbook chapter 5

    ———————————————————

    Where does the SMP Update go from here?

    We respectfully request and ask our LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO EXERCISE  THEIR OPTIONS, in the best interest of Clallam County citizens

    Please, READ AND  CONSIDER THE MANY, 447 online, SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS OF OUR LOCAL CITIZENS?  (http://www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/447-PHewett11-18-14.pdf)

    AND, WE SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION

     ——————————————————————————————–

    The  SMP Update  OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANY OPTIONS

    My suggestions and SMP comment Jan 16, 2015

    That, Clallam County DCD, The Planning Commission and our County Commissioners EXERCISE  THEIR LOCAL OPTIONS and ACT on the OPPORTUNITY TO REMOVE, WHAT IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW, from the November SMP Draft Update

    That they act in the best interest of Clallam County taxpaying citizens

    Nothing to lose out of towner’s and members of  special interest group, MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO DUMP, WHAT IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW, on the backs of the already BELEAGUERED vested private shoreline property owners and taxpaying citizens.

    —————————————————————————————–

    ONE EXAMPLE CONSIDER LOCAL OPTIONS FOR SHORELAND AREAS …..

    Shoreline Jurisdiction – Washington State Department of …

    www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/shorelines/smp/handbook/chapter5.pdf

    Considering local options for shoreland areas ….. body is then regulated under the local SMP, even if it is not yet listed or mapped in the SMP [WAC. 173-20-046] …

     Options shown below ALLOW LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO INCLUDE ALL OR PART OF THE FLOODPLAIN, in addition to the minimum shoreline jurisdiction noted above, when determining shoreline jurisdiction along streams and rivers. When making this decision, consider:

    The LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS THE OPTION of selecting road or railroad corridors, or other features or distances within the flood plain, that provide a suitable upland boundary for the shorelands associated with the river.

    Ecology RECOMMENDS the SMP include the following definition if FEMA maps are used to define the floodway.”Floodway” means the area that has been established in effective federal emergency management agency flood insurance rate maps or floodway maps

    If the SMP relies exclusively on the FEMA map to identify the floodway, DO NOT USE PART (II) OF THE SMA DEFINITION in your SMP floodway definition. This will help to avoid confusion

    The shoreline jurisdiction map should clearly show where the floodway is based on the FEMA map, the SMA floodway definition or the OHWM

    The SMP or a supporting document should explain why the choice of floodway or OHWM was made, in order to provide a record of the decision

    ———————————————————————————–

    CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL  SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS OF OUR LOCAL CITIZENS

    The shoreline property owners, attending the Port Angeles Forum, were well informed on the SMP Update.  The PA questions and comments were detailed and pointedly skeptical.

    1. PA How much did this cost and who’s paying for it?

    2. PA What will I have to do to, to vest  my permits,  to allow me time to complete my home building project before the new SMP is in force?

    3.PA If this SMP was in place in Louisiana or Texas there would be no more development

    4.PA  Does this SMP ever get any better?

    5. PA Will this power point presentation be available online?

    6. PA How will the value of my shoreline property be effected?

    7.  PA My comment and question during the forum

    There has been county discussion that would REQUIRE critical areas information be recorded on shoreline property owners deeds. How is it proceeding?

    —————————————————————–

    This written  PA comment

    WHAT IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW

    Buyers are protected by RCW 64.06.020 –

    Critical areas information being recorded on shoreline property owners deeds, to alert and protect buyers,  is not an SMP requirement. Including this SMP requirement, by Clallam County Planning Commission and or Commissioners in the SMP Update would be  redundant and place an unnecessary financial burden and responsibility on shoreline vested private property owners and all other taxpayers in Clallam County.

    The  County proposed requirement, to place critical areas property shoreline property owners deeds should be removed from the Clallam County SMP Update.

    RCW 64.06.020 – Access Washington

    apps.leg.wa.gov › … › Title 64 › Chapter 64.06

    Washington State Senate

    Improved residential real property — Seller’s duty — Format of disclosure statement … For your protection you must date and sign each page of this disclosure .

    RCW 64.06.020Improved residential real property — Seller’s duty — Format of disclosure statement — Minimum information.

    (1) In a transaction for the sale of improved residential real property, the seller shall, unless the buyer has expressly waived the right to receive the disclosure statement under RCW 64.06.010, or unless the transfer is otherwise exempt under RCW 64.06.010, deliver to the buyer a completed seller disclosure statement in the following format and that contains, at a minimum, the following information:
    —————————————————————–

    This written  PA comment

    NOT REQUIRED BY SMP LAW

    The SMP update includes MUST PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS on development of nine (9) or more units

    RCW 90.58.020 SPECIFICALLY STATES

     (5) INCREASE PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLICLY OWNED AREAS OF THE SHORELINES

    The Clallam County SMP Update does not require the taking of any private shoreline property to provide public access to the public.     

    This  SMP, MUST PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS. by Clallam County Planning Commission and or Commissioners in the SMP Update would be a local legal prerogative, imposed solely by Clallam County  and  place an unnecessary financial burden and responsibility on shoreline property owners and the all taxpayers in Clallam County.

    The burden of expense and paperwork required to MUST provide proof of EXEMPTION from the  MUST PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS (that is not required by law) must not be dumped on the backs of the already beleaguered vested private shoreline property owners.

    Commentary: WA State SMP is requiring Public access on private property at the expense of the property owner – commentary by Pearl Rains Hewett

    8/26/2011 If WA State WDFW and DNR can demand access fees for the EXPENSE of allowing public access on public land?

    How can private property owners be required, by the SMP (Shoreline Management Plan) Update, to provide public access on their private property without compensation for land management capital, operational, maintenance renovation, development of new facilities, trails, enforcement needs and allow them to seek restitution from those who damage their private property?

    The SMP, MUST PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS (that is not required by law) should be removed from the Clallam County SMP Update

    ————————————————————————-

    RCW 90.58.020Legislative findings — State policy enunciated — Use preference.

    snippet
    The legislature declares that the interest of all of the people shall be paramount in the management of shorelines of statewide significance. The department, in adopting guidelines for shorelines of statewide significance, and local government, in developing master programs for shorelines of statewide significance, shall give preference to uses in the following order of preference which:
    (1) Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest;
    (2) Preserve the natural character of the shoreline;
    (3) Result in long term over short term benefit;
    (4) Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline;
    (5) INCREASE PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLICLY OWNED AREAS OF THE SHORELINES


         (6) Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline;

    Clallam County has  51% public access, the highest public access in WA State (per Steve Grey)

    November 2014  Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update – Clallam County

    SIGNS indicating the public’s right to access public shoreline recreation areas/facilities SHALL be installed and maintained in conspicuous locations at points of access and entry.

    If people KNOW where it is and can find it,  It will certainly increase recreational opportunities for the public

    (7) Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary.

    —————————————————————————————————————-
    Sequim and PA PUBLIC FORUMS PROVIDED

    1. An introduction by Steve Gray

    2. A SMP presentation by ESA Consultant Margaret Clancy

    3. An opportunity for the audience to make comments ask questions as a group and get a response.

    4. The informal part,  mix and mingle, the opportunity for one on one personalized attention, staff and a shoreline property owner.

    First by finding the right map, identifying their piece of shoreline property.

    Then the challenging  part..

    Staff decoding the maps and explaining what all of those overlapping colored patches and lines meant?

    —————————————————-

    The reality part

    Wetland? Critical area? flood plain? associated wetland? zoning? setback? Buffer? Conservation? natural? hundred year flood?

    Why is my buffer? setback wider? Why is that patch so big? You mean? I can’t do anything within 100 feet  of that area? FEMA flood plain? I’ll have to get FEMA insurance?

    ———————————————————

    The unbelievable parts

    River meander line? floodplain? What the hell? I live on top of a hill? how can a river meander up to the top of a hill? WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MAPPING?

    ————————————————————-

    Remember this part?  WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS MAPPING?

    If the SMP relies exclusively on the FEMA map to identify the floodway, DO NOT USE PART (II) OF THE SMA DEFINITION in your SMP floodway definition. This will help to avoid confusion

    The shoreline jurisdiction map should clearly show where the floodway is based on the FEMA map, the SMA floodway definition or the OHWM

    The SMP or a supporting document should explain why the choice of floodway or OHWM was made, in order to provide a record of the decision

    ——————————————

    The reality part

    FEMAS HAS WARPED FLOOD PLAINS

    Behind My Back | 2014 FEMA’s Warped Data?

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/03/22/2014-femaswarped-data/

    Mar 22, 2014 – Homeowners, in turn, have to bear the cost of fixing FEMA’s mistakes. Joseph Young, Maine’s floodplain mapping coordinator, said his office …

    ————————————————————-

    The unbelievable parts Sequim Forum

    Grand fathered in? everything you have, no matter where it is, no matter what it is, is just fine,  it is an acceptable use. No worries, be happy. (read the fine print, unless?)

    ——————————————————

    Sequim Forum

    Adopting Clallam County SMP by Ordinance? OR WHAT OTHER?

    What does this mean? Please explain  and clarify, WHAT DIFFERENCE does it make?

    Shoreline Master Program – City of Kirkland

    www.kirklandwa.gov/Assets/City…/10c_UnfinishedBusiness.pdf

    Kirkland

    Jul 26, 2010 – Adopt Ordinance 4251 approving the Shoreline Master Program …. of the new provisions found in the State Guidelines are “no net loss” of …

    (Ordinance 4251 over a 600 page document)

    —————————————————————————

    WHAT IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW

    Something has been added A NEW ONE TIME ONLY  10% BUILD OUT on the SMP Update?

    Is this another of the County’s  unnecessary restriction on Shoreline property owners?

    snippet

    “Well, you have to keep an eye on them, they’ll try to get away with anything that they can.”

    SMP Rude Comments and Conduct

    Posted on by Pearl Rains Hewett

    A nothing to lose member of a special interest group,
    And, a member of the SMP Committee, that wanted to know who would MONITOR county building permits to private property owners,

    “Well, you have to keep an eye on them, they’ll try to get away with anything that they can.”

    This comment was NOT included in the summary of that meeting. Nor, was my response to that comment.

    Disgust, Indeed…. We all know that every private property owner, that wants to add a bedroom or bathroom to his private home on his private property within the SMP jurisdiction is suspect.

    Now? we are confronted with A NEW ONETIME ONLY  10% BUILD OUT? What happens when your mother-in law has to move  in,   or you have twins? and you want a second 10% build out?

    We all know that we will have to keep an eye on them, because they’ll be trying to get away with anything that they can.”  (they’ll get one 10% and then come back for another second 10%  to avoid the 25%)

    ———————————————————————————————————-

    Jan 14, 2015 Sequim Public Forum

    The SMP mini presentation provided more questions then answers

    Comments and Questions (wait until after the presentation)

    1.  During the ESA presentation, a man raised his had three times, he was shut down two times. The third time, he managed to get in this comment. You are covering too much, I want answers and won’t be able to remember what I wanted to ask.

    2.  Where can I get a copy? (no access SMP online) Answer, go to the library.

    Can I get a copy from you? (aka the county) Answer, yes, but you will have to pay for it.

    How big is it? About two hundred pages plus, 30 plus maps.

    3. There were MANY, MANY comments of CONCERN and questions about AQUACULTURE

    —————————————————————–

    snippets of email comments I received Jan. 12, 2015

    Taylor Shellfish leased 97.8 acres of tidelands from Dungeness Farms (the duck hunting club just west of the old Three Crabs Restaurant).  The lease runs until 2028.  They propose farming geoduck on 30 acres.  Nothing has been said what will be done with the other 67 acres, but Taylor Shellfish leases in the south Puget Sound and they farm geoduck off shore and clams and oysters near shore.  The implication during the presentation was that some aqua farming would happen on the other 67 acres.  The land is at the mouth of the Dungeness River.

    To plant the geoduck seed, Taylor Shellfish will scrape the seabed with heavy equipment.  In the South Puget Sound, they would gather the starfish in a pile and pour lime on them kill them.  Sand dollars are shoveled onto the shore where they die.  They remove any crabs from the area……..

    There were MANY, MANY comments of CONCERN and questions about Taylor Shellfish leased 97.8 acres of tidelands (and fish pens)

    Steve Grey appeared to be stressed? When he had to respond several times?

    It went something like this?

    Emphatically stating that  TAYLOR SHELLFISH had not even  applied for a permit from the county.

    and, that TAYLOR SHELLFISH would be  required to  “run the gantlet” (my words) of fed? state? ecology? impact? before the county could/would approve a permit,

    Even if TAYLOR SHELLFISH HAD applied for a county permit,  and the county had received the application permit, which they do not, the county would have to receive before it could be considered, to be approved

    ————————————————————————————–

    My comment

    Some people just got up and walked out of the Sequim Forum.

    There was NO Applause.

    —————————————————

    the bottom line

    Where does the SMP Update go from here?

    Where do we go from here?

    We respectfully request and ask our LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO EXERCISE  THEIR OPTIONS, in the best interest of Clallam County citizens

    Please, READ AND  CONSIDER THE MANY, 447 online, SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS OF OUR LOCAL CITIZENS?  (http://www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/447-PHewett11-18-14.pdf)

    AND, WE SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION

     


  • Confront? Question? Demand?

    Confront? Question? Demand?

    Why do  I  personally bother to attend and speak out at  Rep. Derek Kilmer’s Town Hall Meetings?

    Someone’s  GOT TO DO IT … speak  out publicly, in front of the local news media on THE FEDERAL UNMENTIONABLES.

    Someone’s  got to  confronted him with the evidence, ask the hard questions, compel him to face or consider something and  demand answers.

    As our elected rep. in WA DC Rep. Derek Kilmer is responsible to us.

    WHAT WILL  KILMER  DO IN RESPONSE TO

    THE FEDERAL UNMENTIONABLES?

    1. The ISIS terrorist attacks, 62% of Americans are VERY CONCERNED?

    2.  How Is he going to VOTE to prevent the Olympic Peninsula Electronic WAR GAMES. from destroying our entire coastline of public land? And, the entire coastline from Alaska to Mexico?

    3.   How Is he going to VOTE on the FINANCIAL immigration  Crisis? Dec 3, 2014 – Seventeen states filed a joint lawsuit in federal court Wednesday to try blocking President Barack Obama’s executive order on immigration.

    4.  How is he going to VOTE to reform the Obamacare debacle?

    5. Is he going to address the economic crisis created by SUE AND SETTLE?  (ESA)  taking of public and private land, in violation of the Administrate Procedure Act

    6. Is he going to demand JUSTICE from the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT?

    7.  Is he going to support the return of individual states Sovereignty, to the States, of the United States of America? So we can “MIND OUR OWN BUSINESS”

    8. Rep Kilmer put it in writing,  I’ll continue my fight during this Congress to put our government back in the hands of “We the People.”

    —————————————————————————————-

     OK, REP. KILMER, THIS IS WHAT WE THE PEOPLE WANT?

    WHAT REPRESENTATIVE FEEDBACK ARE WE GOING TO GET FROM YOU?

    We the People of the United States, in Order to RE-FORM a more perfect Union,

    MUST RE- ESTABLISH The  Constitution of  the United States of America.

    MUST RE-ESTABLISH JUSTICE,

    MUST INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY

    MUST PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE

    MUST PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE

    MUST RE-SECURE the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

    We do ordain and MUST INSIST ON  the RE-ESTABLISHMENT of the Constitution for the United States of America.

    ————————————————————————————

    Rep. Kilmer Newsletter, below,  states,  I’ll be holding six town hall meetings so I can hear directly from you elected Rep. Kilmer will be holding six town hall meetings so I can hear directly from you. I want to stress these town halls are open to the public, and I encourage everyone to attend.

    It’s time to bring sanity back?

    Despite the overall dysfunction?

    I’ll continue my fight during this Congress to put our government back in the hands of “We the People.”

    Make the government more transparent and responsive?

    ————————————————————

    I, personally, SHALL continue my fight to put our federal, state and local governments  accountable and back in the hands of “We the People.”

    Even if I have to go it alone, with my boots on the ground and making public comments  at public forums.

    And, on my website behindmyback.org  in cyberspace