+menu-


  • Category Archives The Money’s All Gone?
  • The Failure of Foreign Aid 1946-2016

    The Continuing Failure of U.S. Foreign Aid 1946-2016

    Respond to Syria Crisis

    July 13, 2016 Highlights

    U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry announces nearly $439 million in new U.S. Government (USG) humanitarian funding for Syria and neighboring countries. Fact Sheet Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DC

    THIS NEW FUNDING BRINGS U.S. HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE IN RESPONSE TO THIS CONFLICT TO MORE THAN $5.1 BILLION SINCE THE START OF THE CRISIS.

    SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY PLEDGED ABOUT $890 MILLION IN AID TO SYRIA AND NEIGHBORING COUNTRIES ON THURSDAY,

    A COMMITMENT THAT WILL MAINTAIN WASHINGTON’S POSITION AS THE SINGLE BIGGEST CONTRIBUTOR OF HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE TO THE FIVE-YEAR CIVIL WAR.

    ————————————————————————–

    AUG 26, 2016, SO AFTER MORE THAN $5.1 BILLION IN U.S. TAXPAYERS DOLLARS FOR WASHINGTON DC’S CONTINUING POLICY FOR HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE TO SYRIA,  SINCE THE START OF THE FIVE-YEAR CIVIL WAR.

    American foreign aid still suffers the same problems it did when Kennedy took office in 1961. Despite countless reforms, foreign aid is still a failure.

    The American people are witness to, and paying for the Continuing Failure of WASHINGTON DC’S Foreign Aid policy 1946-2016.

    AS TRUMP WOULD SAY ESTABLISHMENT POLITICIANS HAVE BEEN MAKING VERY BAD DEAL FOR AMERICA, FOR 70 YEARS.

    The bottom line….

    VOTE FOR DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN 2016.

    WHY?

    Because, You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else. Winston Churchill

    ——————————————————————-

    Government Accountability Office 1982

    ID-82-36: Published: Jun 15, 1982. Publicly Released: Jun 15, 1982.

    Government Accountability Office 2016?

    ———————————————————————-

    VOTE FOR TRUMP IN THE OVAL OFFICE FOR AN ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT 2016

    ———————————————————————

    THE UNITED STATES REMAINS THE WORLD’S LARGEST BILATERAL DONOR OF ECONOMIC AND MILITARY ASSISTANCE.

    WHAT DID TRUMP SAY ABOUT NATO?

    U.S. Gives Financial Aid to 96% of All Countries – Forbe

    www.forbes.com/sites/othercomments/…/u-s-gives-financial-aid-to-96-of-all-countries/

    How much money is spent on foreign aid? U.S. Gives Financial Aid to 96% of All Countries.
    ACCORDING TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012, “THE UNITED STATES REMAINED THE WORLD’S LARGEST BILATERAL DONOR, OBLIGATING approximately $48.4 billion$31.2 billion in economic assistance and $17.2 billion in military assistance.”

    ———————————————————————-

    REMEMBER… THIS IS AMERICAN TAXPAYERS MONEY, BILLIONS  AND BILLIONS, IN FACT TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS SPENT IN THE LAST 70 YEARS.

    WA DC DIPLOMATIC FOREIGN AID POLICY 1946-2016?

    IF THERE’S A GLOBAL PROBLEM?

    THROW AMERICAN TAXPAYERS MONEY AT IT.

    ———————————————————————-

    The Continuing Failure of Foreign Aid | Cato Institute

    www.cato.org/publications/policy…/continuing-failure-foreignaid

    full text below

    ————————————————————————

    Why U.S. Foreign Aid Fails – National Center for Policy Analysis

    www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_ID=23228

    National Center for Policy Analysis

    full text below

    ——————————————————————–

    The following website is difficult to navigate.

    I’ll walk you through it.

    Click on the link below

    scroll down to the blue box

    countries that receive the most foreign aid,

    click on it.

    Now you are in starting with #25  countries that receive the most total foreign assistance from the U.S..

    The dollar amounts in the boxes are the cumulative total of foreign aid given to each country from 1946-2014. Dollar figures in the story are inflation-adjusted to 2014.

    FOR CLARIFICATION

    The cumulative total of foreign aid 1946-2014  given to Sudan $263,922,519

    #25 – Sudan

    In (by)  2014, Sudan received a total of $263,922,519 in foreign assistance from the U.S.

    That full amount in 2014 was in economic aid; the U.S. did not provide any military aid to Sudan in 2014.

    When you hover on the year on the graphs, you will find the amount of U.S. foreign aid given to Sudan during that year.

    For example in 2007 Sudan received U.S. economic aid in the amount of $860 million and an additional $413 million in military spending.

    ———————————————————————–

    Countries That Receive the Most Foreign Aid From the U.S. | InsideGov

    usforeignaid.insidegov.com/stories/14502/countriesreceivemostforeignaid

    Jun 15, 2016 – InsideGov ranked the 25 countries that receive the most total foreign assistance from the U.S.. By Palmer Gibbs on June 15, 2016

    Using the most recent data available from USAID. the UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, InsideGov ranked the 25 countries that receive the most total foreign assistance from the U.S.

    The wide array of foreign policy positions and ideas indicate there are a lot of ways the United States can be involved on the international stage. With this in mind, Graphiq politics site InsideGov decided to examine which countries receive the most foreign aid from the U.S. Using the most recent data available from the United States Agency for International Development, InsideGov ranked the 25 countries that receive the most total foreign financial assistance (the cumulative total) from 1946-2016

    from the U.S., listing countries from smallest to largest total received.

    Foreign assistance includes loans, contracts and grants, but not debt forgiveness.

    THE DATA SOURCE CATEGORIZES ASSISTANCE AS EITHER ECONOMIC OR MILITARY, AND COVERS (the cumulative total) U.S. ASSISTANCE FROM 1946 TO 2014.

    Dollar figures in the story are inflation-adjusted to 2014.

    Source: USAIDAS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2014

    ——————————————————————————-

    The following study concludes with an analysis of why U.S. foreign aid has failed in the past and why it will most likely fail in the future.

    Military aid and security assistance is a different issue and is not examined here.

    The Continuing Failure of Foreign Aid | Cato Institute

    www.cato.org/publications/policy…/continuing-failure-foreignaid

    Cato Institute

    by J Bovard – ‎Cited by 40 – ‎Related articles

    For 40 years, U.S. foreign aid has been judged by its intentions, not its results. … American foreign aid still suffers the same problems it did when Kennedy took …

    Policy Analysis No. 65

    The Continuing Failure of Foreign Aid 1946-2016

    By James Bovard

    January 31, 1986

    Executive Summary

    For 40 years, U.S. foreign aid has been judged by its intentions, not its results. Foreign aid programs have been perpetuated and expanded not because they have succeeded, but because giving foreign aid still seems like a good idea. But foreign aid has rarely done anything that countries could not have done for themselves. And it has often encouraged the recipient governments’ worst tendencies—helping to underwrite programs and policies that have starved thousands of people and derailed struggling economies.

    In agriculture, in economic planning, in food assistance, U.S. foreign aid has routinely failed to benefit the foreign poor. In Africa, Asia, and Latin America, the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) has dotted the countryside with “white elephants”: idle cement plants, near-empty convention centers, abandoned roads, and—perhaps the biggest white elephant of them all—a growing phalanx of corrupt, meddling, and overpaid bureaucrats.

    Since 1946, the United States has given over $146 billion in humanitarian assistance to foreign countries. In 1985, the United States provided over $10 billion in non-military aid abroad, ranging from free food to balance-of-payments support to project-assistance and population-planning programs. AID employs over 4,500 employees to administer these programs, many of which have expanded rapidly under the Reagan administration.

    Americans have a long tradition of generously aiding the victims of foreign earthquakes, famines, and wars. Before World War II, private citizens provided almost all of America’s foreign assistance. After World War II, the Truman administration decided that a larger, more centralized effort was necessary to revitalize the war-torn economies of Europe. Economic planning was the rage in Washington in the late 1940s, and Marshall Plan administrators exported their new-found panacea. The Marshall Plan poured over $13 billion into Europe and coincided with an economic revival across the continent. The best analysis indicates that Europe would have recovered regardless of U.S. aid, and that the clearest effect of the Marshall Plan was to increase the recipient governments’ control of their economies.[1]

    The apparent success of the Marshall Plan led Truman in 1949 to propose his Point Four Program to provide a smaller version of the Marshall Plan for poor countries in Africa, Asia, and Central and South America. Truman declared that Point Four would be “a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of undeveloped areas.”[2]

    In the 1950s, the Eisenhower administration downplayed humanitarian aid, concentrating on security assistance to strategic allies. In 1954, Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey pushed the Food For Peace program through Congress, but that was the largest innovation in economic assistance during the decade. When John F. Kennedy took the helm in 1961, the stage was set for a huge expansion of foreign aid. In a special message to Congress, Kennedy called for “a dramatic turning point in the troubled history of foreign aid” and proclaimed that the sixties would be the “decade of development”—“the period when many less- developed nations make the transition into self-sustaining growth.” Kennedy placed heavy stress on the willingness of recipient governments “to undertake necessary internal reform and self-help.”[3] In 1961, AID was created, and the U.S. foreign aid bureaucracy came into its own.

    Despite Kennedy’s stress on requiring reforms from recipient governments, foreign aid routinely went to countries pursuing policies destined to turn them into permanent economic cripples. Partly as a result of a widespread perception that such aid was usually wasted, it consistently ranked as one of the least popular government programs with the American public.[4]

    From the mid-sixties to the early seventies, South Vietnam received the bulk of U.S. economic aid. In 1973, Congress, concerned about the ineffectiveness of U.S. aid, heavily revised aid-program goals to focus more on social services and less on economic development.

    When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, many observers expected a thorough reform of U.S. foreign aid. Reagan declared in a major speech before the annual meeting of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, “Unless a nation puts its own financial and economic house in order, no amount of aid will produce progress.”[5] Since then, despite Reagan’s tough rhetoric on requiring reform from recipient governments, little has changed. American foreign aid still suffers the same problems it did when Kennedy took office in 1961. Despite countless reforms, foreign aid is still a failure.

    Instead of breaking the “endless cycle of poverty,” foreign aid has become the opiate of the Third World. AID and other donors have encouraged Third World governments to rely on handouts instead of on themselves for development. No matter how irresponsible, corrupt, or oppressive a Third World government may be, there is always some Western government or international agency anxious to supply it with a few more million dollars. By subsidizing political irresponsibility and pernicious policies, foreign aid ill serves the world’s poor.

    American foreign aid has often harmed the Third World poor. In Indonesia, the government confiscated subsistence farmers’ meager plots for AID-financed irrigation canals. In Mali, farmers were forced to sell their crops at giveaway prices to a joint project of AID and the Mali government. In Egypt, Haiti, and elsewhere, farmers have seen the prices for their own crops nose-dive when U.S. free food has been given to their countries.

    AID cannot be blamed for all the mistakes made in the projects it bankrolls. However, by providing a seemingly endless credit line to governments regardless of their policies, AID effectively discourages governments from learning from and correcting their mistakes. Giving some Third World governments perpetual assistance is about as humanitarian as giving an alcoholic the key to a brewery. Good intentions are no excuse for helping to underwrite an individual’s—or a country’s— self-destruction.

    Foreign aid programs appear to be incorrigible. For 35 years, American foreign aid policymakers seem to have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. U.S. foreign aid projects routinely repeat the same mistakes today that were committed decades ago. One telltale ironic report title from the General Accounting Office says it all: “Experience—A Potential Tool for Improving U.S. Assistance Abroad.”[6]

    ———————————————————————–

    Experience: A Potential Tool for Improving US Assistance Abroad

    www.gao.gov/products/ID-82-36
    Government Accountability Office

    GAO examined how the Agency for International Development (AID) identifies, records, and uses the knowledge and experience gained from development …

    ————————————————————————

    This study focuses on the failure of U.S. humanitarian aid to achieve its goals. It begins with a close examination of one of the most popular foreign aid programs, Food for Peace. Then comes a review of AID’s record in resurrecting the economies of Central America, followed by an analysis of AID’s role in African agricultural development. AID’s achievements in Egypt and Indonesia are then reviewed, followed by an analysis of AID’s role in spurring the development of private business and capitalism in poor countries. The study concludes with an analysis of why U.S. foreign aid has failed in the past and why it will most likely fail in the future. Military aid and security assistance is a different issue and is not examined here.

    Read the Full Policy Analysis PDF (66.68 KB)

    ——————————————————————

    Why U.S. Foreign Aid Fails – National Center for Policy Analysis

    www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_ID=23228

    National Center for Policy Analysis

    May 31, 2013 – State-provided foreign aid creates the incentive for already … For upwards of 50 years the U.S. federal government has been sending developmental aid to other countries … Browse more articles on Tax and Spending Issues …

    Why U.S. Foreign Aid Fails

    May 31, 2013

    For upwards of 50 years the U.S. federal government has been sending developmental aid to other countries trying to create vibrant economies. Yet, there have been no recorded monumental successes with the use of developmental aid. Based on the high standard of living enjoyed in the United States, you might think that the U.S. government would know how to replicate that standard of living, but they don’t, says Christopher Coyne, F. A. Harper professor of economics at the Mercatus Center.

    In the minds of many first world leaders, development of impoverished nations does not come from going through the same long process first world countries did. Instead, it contains a top-down approach that promises great things like ending poverty. However, there are multiple reasons why state-provided aid cannot bring nations out of poverty:

    • Policymakers do not have access to the knowledge needed to allocate scarce resources to their best uses. In his critique of socialism in the 1930s and 1940s, Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek made this exact point, noting that even the most qualified and benevolent planners lack the knowledge to produce even the most basic items in a cost-effective manner.
    • Aid creates the incentive for already dysfunctional governments to remain ineffective. A cross-country study by Stephen Knack of the World Bank found that foreign aid undermines the quality of political institutions in recipient countries through weakened accountability of political actors, more corruption, greater chances of conflict, and a weakening of the incentive to reform inefficient institutions and policies.
    • Government agencies tend to focus on spending money as quickly as possible on observable outputs to signal their importance and the need for more money. In the absence of clear lines of accountability, money is often wasted.

    The current operations of aid to foreign countries fail because there is not enough supervision as to where the funds go, or how the funds are spent specifically. The real solution to these problems is the guarantee of person liberty and property for citizens in those impoverished nation. Human nature will do the rest.

    Source: Christopher Coyne, “Why Government Aid Programs Aren’t the Best Way to End Poverty,” Mercatus Center, May 21, 2013.

    – See more at: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?Article_ID=23228#sthash.B7ixm8qU.dpuf

    ——————————————————————-

    Why U.S. Foreign Aid Fails  May 31, 2013

    Government Accountability Office 1982

    ID-82-36: Published: Jun 15, 1982. Publicly Released: Jun 15, 1982.

    Experience: A Potential Tool for Improving US Assistance Abroad

    www.gao.gov/products/ID-82-36

    ———————————————————-

    American foreign aid still suffers the same problems it did when Kennedy took office in 1961. Despite countless reforms, foreign aid is still a failure.

    ——————————————————-

    INDEED U.S. FOREIGN AID HAS FAILED IN SYRIA AUG 26, 2016

    AFTER MORE THAN $5.1 BILLION IN U.S. TAXPAYERS DOLLARS FOR WASHINGTON DC’S CONTINUING DIPLOMATIC POLICY FOR HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE TO SYRIA, OVER A BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, SINCE THE START OF THE FIVE-YEAR CIVIL WAR.

    The American people are witness to, and paying for the Continuing Failure of WASHINGTON DC’S Foreign Aid policy 1946-2016.

    ————————————————————–

    In 1982, the GAO examined how the Agency for International Development (AID) identifies, records, and uses the knowledge and experience gained from development …

    So, I CALLED THE Government Accountability Office 1(202)512-4800.

    Georgette directed my call to 1-(202)512-5941  a GAO research team? and I left them a message.

    AS TRUMP SAID,  ESTABLISHMENT POLITICIANS HAVE BEEN MAKING VERY BAD DEAL FOR AMERICA, FOR 70 YEARS.

    VOTE FOR DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN 2016

    WHY?

    Because, You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else. Winston Churchill


  • WA State Budget Non-Essentials?

    WA State Budget Non-Essentials?

    Washington state readies for possible shutdown – The …

    There is no mention of the word “nonessential” agencies  in the 12 pages of the  WA State budget office planning for state agency operations OFM,   Because? Well,  “nonessential” seems a bit hurtful,  and shutdowns  Highlights Basic Fact: Most of Government is ‘Non-Essential’

    Who’s Essential? What’s Essential?  What are  non-essential government agencies and their employees?  

    ——————————————————–

    THE priorities of the BUDGET OFFICE? have been posted on  a list of what each agency will do if a budget deal isn’t reached by June 30, 2015.

    Please read it, IF THE WA STATE BUDGET IS OF INTEREST TO YOU (as a taxpaying citizen?)

    The List of agencies is in alphabetical order ( not in order of SHUTDOWN IMPACTS)

    IT’S  AN ACTUAL  LIST OF WHO’S, WHO…..

    Who’s Essential?  And, What’s Essential for WA State Citizens.

    Contingency planning for state agency operations OFM …

    www.ofm.wa.gov/contingency/Agency_Contingency_Plans_Summary_

    May 29, 2015 – Contingency planning for state agency operations OFM summary of agency impacts. Office of …. Housing Operating and Rent, WA Global.

    Across the spread sheet in this order

    1. Agency

    2. Summary of Impact

    3. Activities Continuing w/o Appropriation (Mandated  Constitutionally or Federal Law)

    4. Activities from Accounts Appropriated in Transportation Budget

    5 Activities from Non-Appropriated Accounts

    6. Emergency Life/Safety Response

    7. SELECTED SHUTDOWN IMPACTS

    ————————————————————-

    I  have selected a few examples below.

    Who’s Essential?  And, What’s Essential?

    And? what are the  ” 2 FTES” HEALTH mentioned below FOR  EMERGENCY LIFE/SAFETY RESPONSE?

    REALLY? only 2 FTES on call for  WA STATE emergency health response.  and a skeleton crew in public health lab and assess potentially fatal biological threats and chemical exposures.

    ——————————————————–

    1. Agency HEALTH

    2. Summary of Impact PARTIAL  SHUTDOWN

    3. None

    4. N/A

    5. Activities from Non-Appropriated Accounts, Activities from the Nursing Resource Center, Temporary Worker Housing, Ambulatory Surgical Facilities, and Impaired Physician and Immunizations accounts

    6. EMERGENCY LIFE/SAFETY RESPONSE?

     2 FTES ON CALL FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE. SKELETON CREW IN PUBLIC HEALTH LAB TO CONDUCT NEWBORN SCREENINGS……

    6.  2 FTES ON CALL FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE. SKELETON CREW IN PUBLIC HEALTH LAB AND ASSESS POTENTIALLY FATAL BIOLOGICAL THREATS AND CHEMICAL EXPOSURES.

    7. SELECTED SHUTDOWN IMPACTS Suspension of non-emergency investigations of health professions misconduct; HIV client services; WOMEN, INFANTS AND CHILDREN FOOD AND NUTRITION; inspections of shellfish operations, X-ray equipment, health care facilities or other operations regulated by agency. New license applications will not be processed. Potential loss of federal funding from the Child Nutrition Act

    ————————————————————————–

    Washington state readies for possible shutdown – The …

    www.spokesman.com/…/2015/…/washingtonsta

    The Spokesman‑Review

    May 30, 2015 – Jay Inslee says he doesn’t expect a state government shutdown on July 1 and legislative leaders say they are doing everything to avoid one, … budget office Friday posted a list of what each agency will do if a budget deal isn’t reached by June 30. … Tags:2015 Washington Legislaturegovernment shutdown.

    Go read the list, a 12 page document,  posted by the BUDGET OFFICE of what will each agency do http://ofm.wa.gov/contingency/Agency_Contingency_Plans_Summary_2015.pdf

    Start here, this  is an enigma, a person or thing that is mysterious, puzzling, or difficult to understand.

    1. Agency  FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

    2. Summary of Impact  PARTIAL SHUTDOWN

    3. Activities Continuing w/o  Appropriation (Mandated Constitutionally or Federal Law)

     Minimal staff required to support THE GOVERNOR IN HIS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES.  On-call staff required to support THE STATE TREASURER’S OFFICE IN PERFORMANCE OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES

    4. blank?

    5. Activities from Non-Appropriated Accounts Staff in the following divisions:  Director’s Office, BUDGET DIVISION, State HR Division and Office of Chief Information Office Staff in the following divisions:

    6. Emergency Life/Safety Response NONE

    7. SELECTED SHUTDOWN IMPACTS (Blank)

    —————————————————————

    Hmmm…

    FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT? PARTIAL SHUTDOWN?

    Minimal staff required to support THE GOVERNOR IN HIS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES

    On-call staff required to support  THE STATE TREASURER’S OFFICE IN PERFORMANCE OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES

    ——————————————————————–

    What CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES?

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

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

    Please, Read THE LIST, A 12 PAGE DOCUMENT,  POSTED BY THE BUDGET OFFICE.

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

    My Constitutional Right to Freedom of Speech allows me to post my personal opinion and this comment on my website.

    The summary of WA State agency impacts. The usual Political SHUTDOWN blame game?  Parisian blackmail? An opportunistic hostage taking opportunity? Holding  citizens essential services hostage, making American Citizens  fearful and threatening “we the people”.

    This published hit List  is  a constitutional failure in  PROMOTING THE GENERAL WELFARE by  THREATENING CITIZENS HEALTH, And a constitutional failure  on securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY BY THREATENING OUR ECONOMY AND PROSPERITY.

    When government actions threaten the future of American citizens, and those American citizens fear the  government.  It is unacceptable  to me.

    “What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this MUDDLED world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?”

    —————————————————————————————–

    Our WA State Governor and elected representative,  can’t find a $$$ solution to the STATEWIDE FINANCIAL Budget CRISIS,  Can’t Agree on EMERGENCY DROUGHT $$$ funding,  while under contempt for NOT funding $$$ education, and while facing a predictable $$$ COSTLY season of extreme wildfires.

    —————————————————————–

    Read THE LIST, A 12 PAGE DOCUMENT,  POSTED BY THE BUDGET OFFICE

    ——————————————————————————

    IF THE WA STATE BUDGET IS OF INTEREST TO YOU (as a taxpaying citizen?)

    1. Agency NATURAL RESOURCES

    2. . Summary of Impact  PARTIAL SHUTDOWN

    3. Activities Continuing w/o Appropriation (Mandated Constitutionally or Federal Law)

    Minimum staffing of timber harvest contracts (that fund WA State schools?)

    4.. Activities from Accounts Appropriated in Transportation Budget Activities funded from Forest Fire Protection Assessment Account, Access Road Revolving Fund, State Forest Nursery Revolving Fund, Contract Harvesting Revolving Account, Parkland Trust Revolving Account and Natural Resources Equipment Fund

    5. Activities from Non-Appropriated Accounts (none listed)

    6. Emergency Life/Safety Response

     Emergency fire suppression and law enforcement activities (paid from non-

    appropriated Parkland Trust Revolving Account

    7. SELECTED SHUTDOWN IMPACTS by the BUDGET OFFICE (NONE)

    ————————————————————————————–

    1. Agency WA STATE PARKS COMPLETE SHUTDOWN

    2 Summary of Impact  COMPLETE SHUTDOWN.

    3. Activities Continuing w/o Appropriation (Mandated  Constitutionally or Federal Law) None

    4. Activities from Accounts Appropriated in Transportation Budget Road maintenance funding

    5  Activities from Non-Appropriated Accounts State Parks Education & Enhancement Account, BOATING & SAFETY EDUCATION Certification, Parks Improvement Account

    6. EMERGENCY LIFE/SAFETY RESPONSE?  NONE

    7. SELECTED SHUTDOWN IMPACTS by the BUDGET OFFICE

    Cancellation of current camping/cabin reservations and

    scheduled special events. CLOSURE  OF STATE PARKS

    ——————————————————————————————–

    ECONOMIC & REVENUE FORECAST COUNCIL SHUTDOWNS?

    FISH & WILDLIFE PARTIAL SHUTDOWN Washington/Oregon Columbian River Compact hearings and

    activities related to care of Endangered Species Act listed fish and wildlife under agency care.

    6. EMERGENCY LIFE/SAFETY RESPONSE?  2 FTEs for emergency response.  Suspension of fish and wildlife enforcement activities, most hatcheries operations, and certain sport and commercial fisheries

    ———————————————————————————-

    ECOLOGY PARTIAL  SHUTDOWN Activities funded from Electronics Product Recycling, Product Stewardship Programs, Basic Data, Coastal Protection, and State Agency Parking accounts, Industrial Insurance Premium refunds, North Lake Shipyard Trust Fund and Yakima Railroad Trust Fund.

    6. Emergency Life/Safety Response, 1FTE to screen oil spill and hazardous material spill  reports. 1 FTE on call to assess dam safety incident  reports

    ————————————————————————

    WA State COMPLETE SHUTDOWNS

    What’s Essential? What’s  non-essential government agencies and their employees?

    I repeat, There is no mention of the word “nonessential”  in the 12 page budget office planning for state agency operations OFM. Well,  because? “nonessential” seems a bit hurtful,  and shutdowns  Highlights Basic Fact: Most of Government is ‘Non-Essential’

    This is a very interesting … (non-essential)

    PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP COMPLETE SHUTDOWN

    1. Agency PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP

    2. Summary of Impact COMPLETE SHUTDOWN

    3. Activities Continuing w/o Appropriation (Mandated  Constitutionally or Federal Law) “NONE”

    4. Activities from Accounts Appropriated in Transportation Budget N/A, 

    5 Activities from Non-Appropriated Accounts N/A, 

    6. Emergency Life/Safety Response “NONE”

    7. SELECTED SHUTDOWN IMPACTS (blank?)

    ————————————————————–

    MORE COMPLETE SHUTDOWNS

    HISPANIC AFFAIRS COMPLETE SHUTDOWN

    HISTORICAL SOCIETY COMPLETE SHUTDOWN

    HORSE RACING COMMISSION COMPLETE SHUTDOWN

    LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD COMPLETE SHUTDOWN

    INDIAN AFFAIRS COMPLETE SHUTDOWN

    ————————————————————————

    HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION COMPLETE SHUTDOWN?

    HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY  PARTIAL SHUTDOWN Limited activities of Public Employee Benefits, Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance programs to continue until state withdrawal. Suspension of state-only programs such as medical services for aged, blind and disabled and children’s health care program for undocumented children. Payments to providers for service delayed. Health Benefit Exchange call center and IPA services to enroll individuals in QHPs or Medicaid can be paid for with grant funding during July and Aug. only

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

    LICENSING PARTIAL? SHUTDOWN (How BIG  would a full shut down be?)

    Management Support Services;

    Information Services Division;

    Customer Relations Division with the exception of funding for payment of credit card fees associated with vessel registration; Programs & Services Division; portions of the Business & Professions Division, specifically1a assistant director and administrative assistant position; Limousine Licensing; For Hire Vehicle Licensing; Driver Training Schools; Auto Dealers & Manufacturer Services; Hulk Hauling, Tow Truck, Off-Road Vehicle Dealers, Snow Mobile and Wrecker Licensing; Prorate and Fuel Tax/International Fuel Tax Agreement. Activities from the landscape Architect, Geologist, Funeral Directors and Embalmers, and Cemetery Licensing account.

    Licensing Integrity Unit provides licensing data to law enforcement agencies and will require at least 1 full-time FTE and 1 on-call/backup person in the event of a shutdown. In addition, 1 on-call person will be needed to handle questions and maintain access to law enforcement information.

    PARTIAL SUSPENSION OF” BUSINESS” PROFESSION DIVISION DUE TO SUSPENSION

    of the following licensing activities: appraisal management companies; architects; auctioneers; bail bonds; body art/tattooists; camp resorts; collection agencies; combative sports; commercial telephone solicitors; cosmetologists; court reporters; employment agencies; firearms; home inspectors; metal recycling dealers; notary public; private investigators; professional engineers/land surveyors; real estate appraisers; real estate brokers; security guards; sellers of travel; timeshares; Uniform Commercial Code; vessel dealers; vessel credit card payments; whitewater river outfitter.

    ——————————————————————–

    PLEASE, GO ONLINE AN READ THE

    Contingency planning for state agency operations OFM …

    www.ofm.wa.gov/contingency/Agency_Contingency_Plans_Summary_

    May 29, 2015 – Contingency planning for state agency operations OFM summary of agency impacts. Office of …. Housing Operating and Rent, WA Global.

    I just read and posted a few of the examples.

    Another chapter in the book of revelations by Pearl Revere


  • 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

     


  • PART (12) WOW Deprived of Our Use

    PART (12) WOW  Deprived of Our Use

    What happens?  when over 300 million American Citizens are DEPRIVED of the full use and enjoyment of every WILD National Park public land?

    IS THERE A PROBLEM?

    WITH RESTRICTED PUBLIC ACCESS, TO OVER 300 MILLION AMERICAN CITIZENS?

    THOSE 300 MILLION AMERICAN CITIZENS THAT ARE BEING DEPRIVED OF THE FULL USE, ENJOYMENT AND BENEFIT OF 109,511,966 “WILD” AKA “DESIGNATED WILDERNESS” ACRES OF NATIONAL PARK PUBLIC LAND IN 44 STATES, IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

    ——————————————————————

    WHAT’S THE  PROBLEM?

    We the American People have been DEPRIVED OF OUR USE and USED BY THE U.S. CONGRESS.

    CONGRESS HAS ABUSED US, BY DENYING “WE THE PEOPLE” OUR HISTORICALLY DOCUMENTED RIGHT TO THE USE OF PUBLIC LAND.

    CONGRESS HAS EXPANDED, EXPENDED, USED OUR MONEY, SPENT THEIR TIME, ENERGY, EFFORT

    LAYING DOWN FEDERAL LAWS THAT CONFLICT WITH AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY

    TO FINANCE, GRANT, PROMOTE AND TO FULFILL THE GLOBAL NGO’S, THE UN AGENDA 21 AND TO REWILD AMERICA.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Indeed, the American People have been TAKEN by CONGRESS.

    INITIALLY TAKING? AND CREATING 9.1 MILLION ACRES OF WILD LANDS

    CONGRESS  has habitually USED their power to “WILD AMERICA’S NATIONAL PUBLIC PARKS PUBLIC LAND”

    TO TAKE, EXPAND AND EXPEND, USING OUR TAX DOLLARS,

    TO RESTRICT THE USE, BENEFIT AND ENJOYMENT OF   ‘WE THE PEOPLE”  IN  757 WILDERNESS AREAS OF NATIONAL PUBLIC PARK LAND.

    NOW  IN 2014,  THE WILDING OF AMERICA PUBLIC LAND NOW TOTALS 109,511,966 ACRES IN 44 STATES.

    ALL DESIGNATED AS “WILD”  WILDERNESS NATIONAL PUBLIC PARK LAND

    ————————————————————————–

    PROBLEMS WITH WILDERNESS?

    “WE THE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN USED” AND OUR $$$  HAS BEEN USED UP BY CONGRESS

    TAXPAYERS money or an amount of money, time, energy, effort, or some other resource, often UNTIL NONE IS LEFT.

    CONTROLLED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    ENFORCED BY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

    GRANTED  WITH TAXPAYERS $$$

    NGO’S THAT manipulate (CONGRESS) or exploit somebody (CONGRESS) to exploit or manipulate somebody

    THE U.S. CONGRESS WAS USED as a means to an end.

    THE U.S. CONGRESS USED  OUR $$$ TO FINANCE, GRANT AND PROMOTE,  TO FULFILL THE UN AGENDA 21, THE GLOBAL NGO’S  AND THE REWILDING OF  AMERICA.

    AND, “WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE” WERE USED

    AS THE DEEP POCKETS TO FINANCE ALL OF IT.

    ———————————————————————————-

    OVER TWO YEARS OLD… HOW WILD IS THAT?

    An observation on “WILD” from Pearl Rains Hewett

    May 17, 2012 Pienpolitics.com/?p=9958 Federal gov & land grabs

    WILD OLYMPICS over 300 million are deprived the full use and enjoyment of the public land

    EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN ( over 300 million) IS DEPRIVED IN EVERY WILD NATIONAL PARK

    AND ON EVERY WILD AND SCENIC RIVER.

    WILD OLYMPICS vs  OVER 300 MILLION AMERICAN CITIZENS DEPRIVED

    OF THE FULL USE AND ENJOYMENT OF OVER ONE MILLION ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND

    IN JUST THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK

    POPULATION OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  Source: U.S. Census Bureau

    311,591,917 Three hundred eleven million, five hundred ninty one thousand, nine hundred and seventeen

    What was the intent of Congress with regard to the full use and enjoyment of the public land, in the creation of Olympic National Park,  by the American People that own that public land?

    Due process of law when just a single citizen is deprived?

    What happens when over 300 million American Citizens are deprived of the full use and enjoyment of every WILD National Park public land?

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ———————————————————————————-

    What was the intent of Congress with regard to the full use and enjoyment of the public land, in the creation of all National Park,  Parks created by the American People, of the people and for the people, that own that public land?

    INITIALLY FOR THE USE? AND BENEFIT? OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

    USE by definition, employ something for purpose?

    TO THE BENEFIT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?

    BENEFIT by definition, SOMETHING THAT HAS A GOOD EFFECT OR PROMOTES WELL-BEING,  to give somebody or receive help, an advantage, or another benefit.  Put something into action or service for some purpose

     

     


  • (6) WA Parks Public Access to Public Land

    (6) WA Parks  Public Access to Public Land

    Comments from the Blue Ribbon Task force on WA State Parks  Recreation and Tourism

    Aug,19, 2014.

    Comment, THE COST (OF THE DISCOVER PASS) DISCOURAGES THE LOWER ELEMENT?

    (like this is a GOOD THING?)

    From the LOCAL PEOPLE’S USE  And Access to WA State Parks?

    REALLY? That is AN unconscionable REMARK?

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

    THE COST (OF THE DISCOVER PASS) DISCOURAGES THE LOWER ELEMENT?

    The cost of the Discovery Pass SELECTIVELY prohibits use of WA State Parks by financial affordability and financial class?

    Financial PROFILING? BY USING $$$, Class distinction TO ALLOW, PROHIBIT OR CONTROL THE USE OF PUBLIC LAND BY AMERICAN CITIZENS?

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

    CONFIRMING THE OBSTRUCTION OF  AFFORDABILITY.

    Comment,  In a depressed economy LOCAL people in my area can’t afford the $30.00 cost of the Discovery Pass

    The well heeled?  Professional’s? OUT OF TOWNER’S, TOURISTS, RUNNER’S AND FISHERMEN   are WELCOMED AND INVITED to come?   TO  FISH  AND RUN (on the Discovery Trail) PLAY, STAY AND SPEND THEIR MONEY?

    WHILE, THE COST (OF THE DISCOVER PASS) DISCOURAGES THE LOWER ELEMENT?

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

    Consider this? Less than half of the governor’s  appointed task force sat through the ENTIRE seven hour discussions on the meeting.

    But? (the table was full)  everybody? showed up to create the final draft?

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

    I sat SILENTLY through the entire seven hour WA Park Recreation and Tourism meeting.

    A question was asked “IS ONP A PROBLEM?

    Is the OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK A PROBLEM? With regard to WA Park Recreation and Tourism?

    (not one person on the committee responded?) Including REP. STEVE THARINGER?

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

    “IS ONP A PROBLEM?”

    If?  I had been allowed to make more than a strictly enforced, clock timed,  two minute LOCAL public comment?

    Below is my comment Feb. 14, 2013,  POSTED OVER ONE AND A HALF YEARS AGO,

    ON PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC LAND

    THE WILD OLYMPICS – WILDERNESS SCOPING PLAN and to all Federal, STATE Agencies, elected officials, and APPOINTED GOVERNMENT AGENCIES including the ONP and the US fish and wildlife service.

    PAY PER VIEW
    A non-public service provided by the appointed, including, BUT NOT LIMITED to, the National Park Service, ONP and WA STATE PARKS in which every vested American citizen can purchase the right to view public land.

    Continue reading for the full text

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

    Pay Per View Or Free On Demand

    Posted Feb. 14, 2013 by Pearl Rains Hewett

    PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC LAND? PAY PER VIEW? OR FREE ON DEMAND?

    This is my comment on public access to public land, the WILD Olympics – Wilderness Scoping Plan and to all Federal State Agencies, elected officials, and appointed government agencies including the ONP and the US fish and wildlife service.

    Expand your entertainment options exponentially with direct FREE use and access to public land ON DEMAND.

    PAY PER VIEW
    A non-public service provided by the appointed, including, but not limited to, the National Park Service, ONP and WA STATE PARKS in which every vested American citizen can purchase the right to view public land. The government requires the exorbitant payment at the same or new government road blocks, time after time, to every Vested American ordering it (as opposed to the right to view public land “FREE ON DEMAND systems, which would allow vested American viewers to see and have reasonable use to public land free at any time).

    PAY PER VIEW
    Paid parks entry can be purchased using an on-line guide, an automated telephone system, or through an automated non-customer service representative.

    PAY PER VIEW
    Government park PAY PER VIEW events often include, restricted use, excessive other restrictions, QUOTAS, conservation, no jogging, no horses, road blocks, reservations, limited campsites, closed trails, permits, more permits, closed roads, denied access, no off road vehicles, no campfires, no fishing, no hunting, no shooting, no pets, no bicycles, and adding additional new enhanced features like surveillance, law enforcement,
    ticketing, court appearance events and exorbitant payment of non-negotiable fines on you, for your entertainment.

    FREE ON DEMAND
    Expand your entertainment options exponentially with direct free use and access to public lands on demand.

    FREE ON DEMAND
    Vested American citizens have instant free access to millions and millions of acre in the hottest NATIONAL PARKS AND STATE PARKS, whenever you want, where ever you want. Enjoy the Olympic National Park, catch up on missed camping episodes of your favorite campsites or rediscover old favorites, like the 7 Lake Basin.

    SUBSCRIBE NOW
    For your free direct public access on demand? To start enjoying free direct on demand access and reasonable use to public land?

    GETTING STARTED
    Sacramento, CA; July 17, 2012: On behalf of off-road motorized recreational users of the Tahoe National Forest, attorneys with Pacific Legal Foundation today sued the federal government for illegally closing off more than 800 miles of roads and trails that have been used for decades by the public for environmentally responsible off-road motorized recreation, access to camping and fishing, and to assist in the prevention of forest fires.

    Support Pacific Legal Foundation “We are filing this lawsuit to stop the U.S. Forest Service from illegally padlocking vast areas of the Tahoe national forest and blocking the public from enjoying responsible recreational use of public lands,” said PLF attorney Brandon M. Middleton.

    The Federal Courts will decide.

    PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC LAND?

    FREE ON DEMAND? OR PAY PER VIEW?

    You decide.

     


  • (3) WA Parks -The We’s Who Want?

    (3) WA Parks -The We’s Who Want?

    WA STATE PARK APPROPRIATIONS

    Governor Inslee WANTS the blue ribbon task force on parks and outdoor recreation,

    that he appointed, to  FOCUS ON RECREATION AND TOURISM.

    I did attend the Aug. 19, 2014  committee meeting in Sequim, and I sat SILENTLY through the meeting from 1 P.M. TO 3 P.M. … TO 8 P.M.

    I was allowed, EXACTLY TWO MINUTES, to make my public comment at 7:50 P.M.

    I listened to what your 28 Appointed Committee member’s “WANT” for about seven hours.

    Rep. Tharinger  mentioned, that what you “WANT” to provide funding for recreation/tourism, and what you may actually get, could be significantly different.

    I do investigative, documented reporting on my website behindmyback.org.

    —————————————————————————–

    Below you will find  an exchange of emails

    Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:43 AM

    —– Original Message —–
    From: Farber, Daniel (PARKS)
    To: pearl hewett ; Van De Wege, Rep. Kevin ; Tharinger, Steve ; Hargrove,Jim etc.

    Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:43 AM

    Subject: RE: WHO IS THE “WE” WHO WANTS? STATE PARKS APPROPRIATIONS

    —————————————————————————

    Continue reading, for the full text of my questions, comments and the exchanged emails

    ——————————————————–

    Posted April 21, 2013 Pearl Rains Hewett

    WA STATE PARK APPROPRIATIONS

    PUBLIC ACCESS AND APPROPRIATIONS FOR WA STATE PARKS

    Perhaps YOUR last public hearing opportunity on the topic of our request legislation and the Discover Pass is set for Monday, April 22, 2013 at 9 am before the House $$$$$ Appropriations Committee.

    ———————————————————————————-

    To: Daniel Farber, Director
    Policy and Intergovernmental Affairs
    Washington State Parks

    Daniel,

    I am a WA State Park VESTED Stakeholders
    This my comment on YOUR Policy and Intergovernmental Affairs Washington State Parks and YOUR requested $$$$ legislation.
    ——————————————————————
    Washington Wildlife Recreation Program (WWRP)
    The Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program provides funding for a broad range of land protection and outdoor recreation, including park acquisition and development, habitat conservation, farmland preservation, and construction of outdoor recreation facilities.
    —————————————————————-

    MY COMMENT
    I find the title and description of the , WWRP program DISTURBING? It this WA park broad range of land protection, acquisition, development habitat, conservation program designed to provide outdoor recreation facilities for WILDLIFE?
    ————————————————————–

    Capital Budget (Doesn’t include a possible $5 – $10 million infusion for removal of fish passage blocking culverts)

    Governor Inlsee – $46.6 million (plus $8.3 million in WWRP Grants)
    House – $56.9 million (plus $7.9 million in WWRP Grants)
    Senate – $50.7 million (plus $3.3 million in WWRP Grants)
    Commission October Request – $67.8 million (plus $11.5 million in WWRP Grants)
    ——————————————————————
    Per Rep. VanDeWege, $20 MILLION SPENT for removal of fish passage blocking culverts this year.
    —————————————————————

    MY COMMENT
    Last summer families in Port Angeles were putting up tents and camping in their back yards.

    The abysmal failure of the WA State Discover Pass? The cost, Families simply can’t afford to use WA State Parks.

    ———————————————————–
    *From: an online email comment that was forwarded to me (name removed)

    *Also if there is going to be a gas tax increase, NOVA needs its appropriate share.

    MY COMMENT
    Do you really think raising the gas tax and grabbing a piece of the pie, is the solution to increasing park attendance, for the jobless, working poor, economically starved people in Clallam County?

    MY COMMENT is the solution to providing free Public Viewing of WA State Parks just as a NOVA image on Television?
    ———————————————————————-
    THIS IS WHAT WA State Park VESTED Stakeholders ARE UP AGAINST
    ———————————————————————–
    *From: online email comment that was forwarded to me (name removed)

    *Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 11:58 PM
    To: ‘bchw-public-lands-committee’ ; BCHWLegis@groupspaces.com
    Subject: FW: State Parks Legislative Report – April 19, 2013

    Bills regarding State Parks funding are coming fast and either moving or dying. The session is winding down. I am okay with SB5897 and SHB1935 (scheduled for public hearing on Monday).

    It is hard to state support for SHB1935 since it may be an entirely different bill when it is heard on Monday.

    This is the problem with these bills. They are amended on the spot in Committee with no prior review by the public so you may say you like a bill on minute but it is an entirely different bill the next.

    We still want $27million for State Parks from the General Fund, at least $60 million for WWRP (and no games with cherry picking projects), and no sweeps of NOVA. Also if there is going to be a gas tax increase, NOVA needs its appropriate share.

    Well one bill we supported passed both houses. Increasing the size of the Horse Park Authority. At least it is something!!
    *online email comment name removed
    ———————————————————————–

    *Context : Politics Definition of CHERRY PICKING Added 4/21/13
    Exercising favoritism to benefit yourself or your argument.
    Context : Politics, Social Life
    Category: Metaphor
    Semantic: bias, slant
    Usage of “cherry pick”
    This is not fair. You have cherry picked your winners before the competition started.
    Both the political Left and Right cherry pick data to prove their points. Both sides are showing heavy bias.
    ————————————————————–

    From: Farber, Daniel (PARKS) [mailto:Daniel.Farber@PARKS.WA.GOV]
    Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 10:50 AM
    To: Farber, Daniel (PARKS)
    Subject: State Parks Legislative Report – April 19, 2013

    Dear Park Stakeholders,

    For your information, below is the latest report to park staff of issues affecting State Parks in the legislature.

    Daniel
    —————————————————–

    From: Farber, Daniel (PARKS)
    Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 10:45 AM
    To: Parks DL All Employees
    Subject: Legislative Report – April 19, 2013

    Dear Colleagues,

    I want to provide you a brief update on legislative doings since last week’s report.

    A. The Discover Pass and Agency Request Legislation:

    There is no change on the status of SB5897, which combines four major state parks related elements:

    1.The core of our agency request legislation (SB5653) which works to expand partnerships, expand the role of the Park Foundation, and link us more soundly to cultural celebrations, ethnic heritage and the arts.
    2.Discover Pass reforms (SB5289) that formalize existing practice of not requiring/enforcing the Pass when accessing through DNR and WDFW lands. There is no such change on State Parks lands. The bill also allows for wholesaling of the pass, if all three agencies agree.
    3.Establishing a set of performance measurements for state parks, and a reporting function to the legislature.
    4. Provides $5 million per year funding from the litter tax for 4 years to state parks.

    The bill passed the Senate Ways and Means Committee and now sits in the Rules Committee.

    Perhaps the last public hearing opportunity on the topic of our request legislation and the Discover Pass is set for Monday, April 22 at 9 am before the House Appropriations Committee. SHB1935 is set as the first bill up for a public hearing in the House Hearing Room A. At this time we do not know or any amendatory language for that bill. But here is the most reasonable expectation:

    1 It will be similar to SB5897, however it is unlikely to include the litter tax provision.
    2.It may include some provision related to legislative oversight of the potential State Parks-Public Development Authority Co-Management at Fort Worden.
    B.Boating Safety

    SSB 5437 passed the Senate and the House, but in slightly different forms. It is now on the concurrence calendar in the Senate. The bill provides some law enforcement teeth when it comes to operating a boat while under the influence of intoxicating alcohol.

    C. Snowmobile Funding HB2002 has passed the House and now sits in Senate Ways and Means. It would increase fees for snowmobile registration and allow our Commission to set other fees; enabling funding and services to improve to historic levels.

    D. Horse Park Authority A bill to expand the Authority from 7 to 11 members passed both chambers and is scheduled to be signed by the Governor on Monday. Our Commission appoints members to the Authority Board, but has little other relationship to the organization.

    E. Budgets There are no differences to report from last week. The latest versions of the budget proposals are:

    Operating Budget (General Fund or Other Tax Supported Funding)
    Governor Inlsee – $23.7 million
    House – $23.7 million
    Senate – $16.4 million
    Commission October Request – $27.2 million

    Capital Budget (Doesn’t include a possible $5 – $10 million infusion for removal of fish passage blocking culverts)
    Governor Inlsee – $46.6 million (plus $8.3 million in WWRP Grants)
    House – $56.9 million (plus $7.9 million in WWRP Grants)
    Senate – $50.7 million (plus $3.3 million in WWRP Grants)
    Commission October Request – $67.8 million (plus $11.5 million in WWRP Grants)

    I hope you find this report helpful. Please let me know if you have questions or comments.

    Take care,

    Daniel

    Daniel Farber, Director
    Policy and Intergovernmental Affairs
    Washington State Parks
    P.O. Box 42650
    Olympia, Washington 98504-2650
    Tel: (360) 902-8504
    Mobile: (360) 701-5326
    FAX: (360) 586-6580
    E-mail: daniel.farber@parks.wa.gov

    This email and any responses may be subject to state public disclosure laws.
    —————————————————————

    MY COMMENT
    Clallam County Salt Creek Recreation area is a popular FREE ON DEMAND summer refuge for poor working  families.
    Give the WA State parks back to the counties and provide employment for the local people.

    ————————————————————————–
    It would increase fees for snowmobile registration and
    allow our Commission TO SET OTHER FEES

    This entry was posted in Diverting Our Tax Dollars, Public Access to Public Land, WA State Parks,

    —————————————————————————————-

    WA State Park Question?

    Posted on April 21, 2013

    Who is this “WE” who still wants? STATE PARKS APPROPRIATIONS?

    Indeed, I asked a simple question?

    just to be clear, the question remains unanswered?

    ——————————————————
    RESPONSE
    —– Original Message —–
    From: Farber, Daniel (PARKS)
    To: pearl hewett ; Van De Wege, Rep. Kevin ; Tharinger, Steve ; Hargrove,Jim etc.

    Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:43 AM

    Subject: RE: WHO IS THE “WE” WHO WANTS? STATE PARKS APPROPRIATIONS

    All,

    My name below is listed from an email headline that I wrote to State Parks staff. But just to be clear, I wrote none of the content of the below email. State Parks is not the “we” referenced by Ms. Hewett.

    Daniel

    Daniel Farber, Director
    Policy and Intergovernmental Affairs
    Washington State Parks
    P.O. Box 42650
    Olympia, Washington 98504-2650
    Tel: (360) 902-8504
    Mobile: (360) 701-5326
    FAX: (360) 586-6580
    E-mail: daniel.farber@parks.wa.gov
    —————————————————————-
    FULL email TEXT INCLUDING QUESTION
    Perhaps YOUR last public hearing opportunity on the topic of our request legislation and the Discover Pass is set for Monday, April 22 at 9 am before the House $$$$$ Appropriations Committee.
    ———————————————————————–

    BELOW, Who is this “WE” who still wants? It is not “WE THE PEOPLE”

    “We” still want $27 million for State Parks from the General Fund, at least $60 million for WWRP (and no games with cherry picking projects), and no sweeps of NOVA. Also if there is going to be a gas tax increase, NOVA needs its appropriate share.

    The same “WE” who wrote
    This is the problem with these bills. They are amended on the spot in Committee with no prior review by the public so you may say you like a bill on minute but it is an entirely different bill the next.

    Set for Monday, April 22, 2013 at 9 am before the House $$$$$ Appropriations Committee.
    ——————————————————–

    From: Farber, Daniel (PARKS)
    Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 10:45 AM
    To: Parks DL All Employees
    Subject: Legislative Report – April 19, 2013
    Dear Colleagues,

    From: name removed email from the ”WE” who wants.

    Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 11:58 PM
    To: ‘bchw-public-lands-committee’ ; BCHWLegis@groupspaces.com
    Subject: FW: State Parks Legislative Report – April 19, 2013

    Bills regarding State Parks funding are coming fast and either moving or dying. The session is winding down. I am okay with SB5897 and SHB1935 (scheduled for public hearing on Monday). It is hard to state support for SHB1935 since it may be an entirely different bill when it is heard on Monday. This is the problem with these bills. They are amended on the spot in Committee with no prior review by the public so you may say you like a bill on minute but it is an entirely different bill the next.

    We still want $27million for State Parks from the General Fund, at least $60 million for WWRP (and no games with cherry picking projects), and no sweeps of NOVA. Also if there is going to be a gas tax increase, NOVA needs its appropriate share.

    Well one bill we supported passed both houses. Increasing the size of the Horse Park Authority. At least it is something!!

    name removed email from the ”WE” who wants.
    ———————————————————————–

    FOR CLARIFICATION
    Context : Politics Definition of CHERRY PICKING Added 4/21/13
    Exercising favoritism to benefit yourself or your argument.
    Context : Politics, Social Life
    Category: Metaphor
    Semantic: bias, slant
    Usage of “cherry pick”
    This is not fair. You have cherry picked your winners before the competition started.
    Both the political Left and Right cherry pick data to prove their points. Both sides are showing heavy bias
    ———————————————————————–

    This entry was posted in Reasonable Man understanding, Public Access to Public Land, WA State Parks

    ———————————————————

    If you bothered to read this far, I have a few closing comments.

    I listened to you, you gave me TWO MINUTES.

    Round and round and round the table, I listened to you , most members? FOCUSED on what they “WANT “. And, what you wanted was MORE TAXPAYER MONEY! for what YOU “WANT”.

    It took a comment from a WA Parks, Whidbey Islander before the word “AFFORDABLE”  RECREATION was mentioned.

    A question to the WA Parks Fort Wardener, how much does it cost? total?

    The answer? We don’t keep track of it?

    FOLLOW THE MONEY?  We don’t keep track of it?

    Rep. Tharanger’s response… basically was, some from here, some from a grant there, more here, more from matching funds there.

    Rep. Tharanger’s response and I quote “Part of the Game”.

    Really? Following Taxpayer money? keeping track of the total amounts? grants? matching funds?

    THE TAXPAYER’S $$$$ MONEY’S IS ALL GONE FOR WA STATE PARKS? RECREATION? TOURISM? AND THE MILLIONS OF $$$ FOR THE BACKLOG OF MAINTAINACE? AND REPAIRS?

    “Part of the Game?” As a vested WA State taxpayer, perhaps someone in Olympia, could forward a copy of the WA State legislated rules for this WA Parks taxpayer money Game?

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

    Please visit my website for the

    The “RESTORATION” Shell Game

    A highly convoluted “GAME OF RESTORATION” that  is involving the sleight of many, many hands, in which hundreds of  inverted Federal agencies, WA State agencies, WAC’S and /or other NGO, NUTSHELLS are moved about, and hard working taxpayers must attempt to spot which is the one, of many thousands, with  NGO’S or other government agencies are underneath the “RESTORATION” plan.

    WOW!  HOW MANY NUTS CAN YOU GET UNDER ONE RESTORATION SHELL?

    “WE’RE RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING THE MORE THAN 600 PARTNERS TOGETHER, designing a unified plan, and making sure money is being spent efficiently, and our region is making progress,” SAYS GERRY O’KEEFE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP.

    To be continues….

     

     

     


  • (2) WA Parks-People Hate the Discover Pass

    (2) WA Parks-People Hate the Discover Pass

    OPTION? GET RID OF THE DISCOVER PASS?

    WHY DO PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS?

    THE HEAD OF WA STATE PARKS? HE LIKES THE DISCOVER PASS?  (a new style  is being created?)

    PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS AND THE DISCOVER PASS  PARKING TICKETS  that are issued by Washington State Parks. … You displayed the wrong pass. … You improperly filled out the Discover Pass. Examples … Discover Pass parking tickets are issued by Washington State Parks. … An annual “Discover Pass “ is a white pass mounted on a yellow hanger, with “Discover … You displayed the wrong pass. … You improperly filled out the Discover Pass. AND, for improper display of the pass. Both my sister and my daughter were ticketed on the same day for improper display

    PARKING TICKETS?

    PROBLEMS? WHAT PROBLEMS?

    Confused?

    YOUR ignorance is no excuse?

    —————————————————————-

    PARKING TICKETS?

    COMMON REASONS TO USE THE EXPLANATION FORM 1. You displayed the wrong pass. The following are NOT valid at WA State Parks or for DNR.

    • Northwest Forest Pass            
    • Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Pass issued with fishing/hunting licenses            
    • Federal park passes            
    • Snow park passes
    • America the Beautiful Senior Pass (formerly Golden Age Passport)            
    • America the Beautiful Access Pass            
    • Watchable Wildlife Decal            
    • Senior Pass

    2. You improperly filled out the Discover Pass. Examples include a, failure to fill in license plate numbers or a wrong license plate number on the pass; a   crossed out license plate number, or more than two plate numbers.

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

    PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS.

    NO DUH! The people that have lived in WA State most of their lives,  DON’T WANT TO PAY TO “DISCOVER” WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW THAT WE HAVE. 

    PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS “TICKETS” Discover Pass parking tickets are issued by Washington State Parks. … You displayed the wrong pass. … You improperly filled out the Discover Pass. Examples … Discover Pass parking tickets are issued by Washington State Parks. … An annual “Discover Pass “ is a white pass mounted on a yellow hanger, with “Discover … You displayed the wrong pass. … You improperly filled out the Discover Pass.

    An annual “Discover Pass “ is a white OR green  pass mounted on a yellow hanger, with “Discover Pass” written on the front of the white OR green pass.  A valid “Day Pass” is also available at each park.

     If the white pass has “WDFW” written on it, it is not a Discover Pass and is not valid for State Parks.

    1. Pay in full within 15 days. You may use electronic or phone payment options below.
    2. Request a hearing in writing as explained on the ticket within 15 days.
    3. Mail in an explanation in writing by completing and mailing the explanation form with payment and supporting documentation within 15 days.

    If you choose to mail in a written explanation you must use the Explanation Form, which is available by clicking here

    Common Reasons to use the Explanation Form 1. You displayed the wrong pass. The following are NOT valid at WA State Parks or for DNR.

    • Northwest Forest Pass            
    • Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Pass issued with fishing/hunting licenses            
    • Federal park passes            
    • Snow park passes
    • America the Beautiful Senior Pass (formerly Golden Age Passport)            
    • America the Beautiful Access Pass            
    • Watchable Wildlife Decal            
    • Senior Pass

    2. You improperly filled out the Discover Pass. Examples include a, failure to fill in license plate numbers or a wrong license plate number on the pass; a   crossed out license plate number, or more than two plate numbers.

    ————————————————————————

    DISCOVERY PASS PROBLEMS? WHAT PROBLEMS?

    DISCOVERY PASS CONFUSION? WHAT CONFUSION?

    WHY DO PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS?

    HAVE I ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS?

    NOW IT IS TIME FOR THE  BLUE RIBBON TASK FORCE, APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR ON PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION TO  FOCUS ON THE DISCOVERY PASS, HATRED, PROBLEMS AND CONFUSION AND GENERATE ENOUGH MONEY FOR THE BACKLOG OF MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE  RECREATION AND TOURISM.

     to be continued…

     


  • (1) WA Parks Recreation? Tourism?

    (1) WA Parks Recreation? Tourism?

    WOW! APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR  A BLUE RIBBON TASK FORCE ON PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION. FOCUS ON RECREATION AND TOURISM

    Notification to PUBLIC  in PDN Article published Aug 18, 2014

    One day notification to  meeting Aug. 19,2014 to make PUBLIC COMMENT.

    PDN Article WILL HEAR TESTIMONY FROM THE PUBLIC FROM 1 P.M. TO 3 P.M. AND AT 7:25 P.M. (WRONG)
    ——————————————————————————————————————

    I DID ATTEND AND SIT THROUGH THE MEETING FROM 1 P.M. TO 3 P.M. … TO 8 P.M.

    THE PANEL DID NOT HEAR TESTIMONY FROM THE PUBLIC FROM  1 P.M. TO 3 P.M.

    (1 P.M. TO 3 P.M. was designated as a “FLY ON THE WALL OBSERVER” period)

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

    I have previously posted two comments on my website

    May 29, 2014 – PUBLIC MEETING OBSERVER (3) A FLY ON THE WALL.

    ————————. WHAT’S THE BIG DEAL?

     

    The Fly on the Wall Observer? Posted on July 6, 2014 … https://www.aclu-nj.org/files/7313/1793/0127/OPMA_Booklet.pdf. Do I have the right to …

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

    God forbid that a member of the PUBLIC should be allowed TO ASK A QUESTION  during that time period, OR IN FACT, TO ASK A QUESTION AT ANYTIME DURING THE SEVEN HOUR MEETING .

    WOW, DIRECTIVE… SIT DOWN FOR SIX HOURS? BE QUIET FOR SIX HOURS? LISTEN TO US FOR SIX HOURS? NO QUESTIONS FOR SIX HOURS? NO ANSWERS FOR SIX HOURS OR IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE?

    MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ATTENDING THE MEETING,  SHALL BE ALLOWED EXACTLY  TWO MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR PUBLIC COMMENT AFTER LISTENING TO THE PANEL FROM  1 P.M. TO 7:25 P.M

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

    SOMEONE MENTIONED KEEPING THINGS OUT OF THE MEDIA?

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

    AFTER THE FACT OF DISCUSSION AND PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DRAFT.

    THE PANEL DID HEAR TESTIMONY FROM THE PUBLIC AFTER  7:25 P.M.

    ————————————————————————-

    One member of the panel objected to making PUBLIC COMMENTS, after the fact and last on their agenda.  

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

    TO COMMENT OR NOT TO COMMENT?

    I LOVE THE OPEN AND PUBLIC MEETING ACT, ONE DAY NOTIFICATION AND A TWO MINUTE PUBLIC COMMENT SO I CAN GIVE THEM MY TWO CENTS WORTH.

    A woman that said she had been with WA State RECREATION for 30 years, SHE finally did it…

    I had heard ENUF…I filled out the card to make my comment.

    WHY? Because, my family gave up on WA State Parks  OVER FOUR  years ago and they have GONE TO IDAHO AND  HAVE SPENT  10 DAYS EVERY YEAR SINCE THEN, VACATIONING IN IDAHO.

    ————————————————————————————————

    BACK TO THE MEETING  1 P.M. TO 3 P.M. (pertinent parts?)

    WHAT TO DO? WA PARKS NEED MORE MONEY?

    PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS – OPTION? GET RID OF THE DISCOVER PASS?

    THE HEAD OF WA STATE PARKS? HE LIKES THE DISCOVER PASS (a new style  is being created?)

    WHAT TO DO? WA PARKS NEED MORE MONEY?

    LET’S TAX THE PEOPLE

    1. Car tax

    2. Bottled water tax

    3. RV tax

    ——————————————————————-

    WHY DO THE PARKS NEED MORE MONEY?

    THE HUGE BACKLOG OF MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS

    TO KEEP PARKS OPEN? TO PROVIDE FACILITIES TO ACCOMMODATE NOT ONLY THE OUT OF TOWN TOURISTS,  BUT TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE RECREATING TO LOCAL FAMILIES?

    AFFORDABLE? WA STATE PARK RECREATION? (the first mention of the word “AFFORDABLE” was from a Park man from Whidbey Island.

    WHAT A CONCEPT HUGE $$$$ PUSH TO INVITE  OUT OF TOWN TOURISTS TO COME TO WA  PARKS ONLY FOR THE TOURISTS TO FIND OUT THERE NO FACILITIES  AND  NO SPACE AVAILABLE. (they will go to Idaho or Oregon next year)

    WHAT A CONCEPT HUGE $$$$ PUSH TO INVITE  PEOPLE TO COME TO WA  PARKS FOR THE FISHING? ONLY FOR THE TOURISTS TO FIND OUT THERE IS NO FISHING?

    to be continued …

    ——————————————————————————————-

    COMPLETE TEXT OF PDN PUBLIC NOTICE

    Article published Aug 18, 2014
    State outdoor recreation panel to hear public testimony Tuesday in Sequim
    Peninsula Daily News
    SEQUIM –– A panel called by Gov. Jay Inslee to develop an action plan for increasing outdoor recreation activities will hear testimony from the public when it meets in Sequim on Tuesday.

    The task force formed in April also will focus on promoting jobs and business associated with outdoor recreation for the plan due Sept. 18.

    will hear testimony from the public when it meets in Sequim on Tuesday

     

    The panel — which will meet from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. in the Sequim Holiday Inn Express, 1441 E. Washington St. — will hear testimony from the public from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. and at 7:25 p.m.

    The 28-member task force includes 16 citizen members appointed by the governor; state Reps. Steve Tharinger, D-Sequim, and Vincent Buys, R-Lynden; state Sens. Linda Parlette, R-Wenatchee, and Kevin Ranker, D-Orcas Island; and eight representatives of state agencies.

    Tharinger represents the 24th Legislative District, which covers Clallam and Jefferson counties and part of Grays Harbor County. He is running for re-election in the Nov. 4 general election.

    Outdoor recreation statewide directly supports 227,000 jobs and generates more than $22 billion in annual spending on things like equipment, lodging and apparel, according to the state Recreation and Conservation Office.

    More information about the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Parks and Outdoor Recreation can be found on the state Recreation and Conservation Office’s website at http://tinyurl.com/PDN-recreation.


    All materials Copyright © 2014 Black Press Ltd./Sound Publishing Inc.

    to be continued …

     


  • SMP Update-Six Years of Frustration

    SMP UPDATE – SIX YEARS OF FRUSTRATION

    I submit this as a Clallam County SMP Update Public Comment

    August 18, 2014

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Member of the Clallam County SMP Update Committee

     

    Jul 20, 2013 THE BELLEVUE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS BEEN WORKING ON SHORELINE ISSUES FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS.

    FROM Aug 23, 2008  TO Aug. 2014 – SIX YEARS

    This is a applicable, cautionary, documented historical  summary and it is,  my PUBLIC Clallam County SMP COMMENT on the pitfalls and frustration that ONE WA State  city council  and PLANNING COMMISSION has been experiencing for OVER 6 YEARS in attempting to update their DOE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PLAN.

    ————————————————————————————-

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

    WHETHER ALL OF THE EFFORT BEING PUT INTO THE PLAN WILL SATISFY HOW THE DOE DEFINES “NO NET LOSS” MAY ONLY BE KNOWN ONCE THE SHORELINE MASTER PLAN IS SUBMITTED.

    ————————————————————————–

    documented history

    ECOLOGY CONDUCTED AN INFORMAL REVIEW AND SENT A LETTER TO THE CITY CONTAINING COMMENTS ON THE COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS.

    Jul 20, 2013 THE BELLEVUE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS BEEN WORKING ON SHORELINE ISSUES FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS.

    Jul 16, 2014 BELLEVUE Shoreline plan set for August 2014  public hearing

    The purpose of the August 4, 2014 PUBLIC

    HEARING is to provide an opportunity to make written and oral comments regarding Council-requested variations that are being considered to the Planning Commission’s draft Shoreline Master Program.

    —————————————————————–

    Please continue reading for the documented history

    ———————————————————————————-

     

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

    WHETHER ALL OF THE EFFORT BEING PUT INTO THE PLAN WILL SATISFY HOW THE DOE DEFINES “NO NET LOSS” MAY ONLY BE KNOWN ONCE THE SHORELINE MASTER PLAN IS SUBMITTED.

    According to Richard Settle, an attorney specializing in environmental and land use law with foster pepper PLLC, “NO NET LOSS” IS A NEW AND AMBIGUOUS CONCEPT FOR WASHINGTON.

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

    WHO IS ATTORNEY RICHARD SETTLE ? (I have added this information)

    – See more at: http://www.foster.com/profile.aspx?id=97#sthash.Vh8jPovg.dpuf

    Richard L. Settle

    According to Richard Settle, an attorney specializing in environmental and land use law with foster pepper PLLC, “NO NET LOSS” IS A NEW AND AMBIGUOUS CONCEPT FOR WASHINGTON.

    While the DOE requires NO NET LOSS of existing ecological functions, Settle said that implies a tradeoff of development and restoration. He said there’s also an assumption that restoration doesn’t have to be immediate, and could take as long as 20 years depending on the development.

    He added there’s also confusion as to how far back in time restoration is supposed to match up with shoreline conditions.

    —————————————————————————————

    Dick has more than 40 years of experience assisting clients with matters related to land use, the environment, and municipal law. His experience includes the representation of landowners, developers, municipalities, and citizen groups in virtually all areas of state and local land use regulation before state and local agencies and trial and appellate courts.

    Dick was also recently singled out by the highly-regarded Chambers USA legal directory, which annually interviews firm clients. In addition to a top-ranking of Foster Pepper’s Land Use group, Chambers described Dick as “the leading scholar in land use” and noted for his “vast experience in land use laws and regulations.”

    – See more at: http://www.foster.com/profile.aspx?id=97#sthash.Vh8jPovg.dpuf

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

    The purpose of the August 4, 2014 PUBLIC

    HEARING is to provide an opportunity to make written and oral comments regarding Council-requested variations that are being considered to the Planning Commission’s draft Shoreline Master Program.

     

    The Planning Commission SMP Update recommendation was the subject of

    a prior public hearing that was held on May 5, 2014.

     

    During the July 14, 2014  Study Session, staff presented additional information requested by the Council during the course of its in-depth review. This additional information was Council to identify variations to the  Planning Commission Recommendation that they wished to be considered during the second Public Hearing, and prior to development of the Final SMP Update package for submittal to the Department of Ecology. Variations requested by the Council for consideration by the public are described below.

     

    1.Public Access

    The Council-requested variation to the Planning Commission

    recommendation would require public access (either physical or visual) to be provided as a component of new or expanded private recreation uses (such as yacht clubs, marinas and community clubs). This variation would build on the Planning Commission recommended requirement to provide public access to public uses (including parks, and transportation and utility infrastructure). A description of the Public Access variation under consideration by the City Council is included in

     

    Attachment A.

    2.Park Development.

    The Council- requested variation to the Planning Commission

    recommendation would permit all beach parks to be developed through an administrative permit approval process when a Master Plan had been previously adopted by the City Council.

    Under this variation, Meydenbauer Bay Park would be

    permitted in the same manner as other parks with Master Plans. A

    description of the Park Development variation under consideration by the City Council is presented in

     

    Attachment B.

    3.

    Determination of Ordinary High Water Mark.

    The Council-requested variation to the Planning Commission recommendation would allow for the measurement of setbacks from a fixed elevation as a default, with the ability for applicants to obtain a site-specific determination if desired.

    The fixed elevation would be

    3 based on a lake study such as the one conducted for Lake Sammamish in 2004. This variation would also include  clarification that the fixed elevations would not be used for the purpose of establishing shoreline jurisdiction or determining the

    location of ordinary high water mark (OHWM) for the purpose of properly locating a new dock or bulkhead. A description of the variation under consideration by the City Council for Determination of OHWM is presented in.

     

    Attachment C.

    4.Setbacksand Vegetation Conservation. The Council-requested variation to the Planning Commission setback

    recommendation would include a 50-foot  structure setback with the flexibility to reduce the setback and move toward the water through a series of menu options(or incentives). Existing structures on the site receive the benefit of a footprint exception to legally retain setbacks established by existing residential structures. A string test, allowing for setbacks to be reduced based on the location of structures on abutting properties, would also be included. Mitigation for potential loss of vegetation and vegetation retention would also be required. A description of the Setback and Vegetation Conservation variation under consideration by the City Council is presented in Attachment D.

     

    5.Residential Moorage.

    The Council-requested variation to the Planning Commission residential moorage recommendation would increase the allowed moorage walkway width from four feet to five feet in the first 30 feet waterward of OHWM. Variations to the balance of the Planning Commission recommendation on this topic were not considered.

     

    City Council

    The City Council has held study sessions to consider the Planning Commission’s draft Shoreline Master Program. Refer to the links below for council agenda materials and minutes on the topic.

    Planning Commission

    Residents and other stakeholders had multiple opportunities to provide feedback on the shoreline management update through Bellevue’s Planning Commission, residents who served as an advisory panel for the City Council.  The Planning Commission reviewed work products, provided input and guidance related to the development of goals, policies and regulations, and served as a preliminary approval board. Agendas for Planning Commission meetings in which the shoreline management update was addressed are available below.

    Response to Questions by the Washington Sensible Shoreline Alliance

    Responses to questions & requests collected between May & December of 2009

     

    ——————————————————————————-

    In 2003 the state revised its shoreline management guidelines to emphasize ecologically appropriate development and to reinforce the other goals of the act.

    by 2010. As a consequence, Bellevue has to update its shoreline regulations by 2010.

    Bellevue has been Updating their  SMP plan since 2008

    Aug 23, 2008  Boat tour to focus on shoreline issues The boat will sail promptly from Newport Shores Yacht Club (81 Skagit Key) at 1 p.m. on

    Saturday, Sept. 20, 2008,  with boarding beginning at 12:30. Members of the Bellevue City Council, city boards and commissions and staff from permitting agencies and local Indian tribes are also expected to attend.

    The three-hour tour is open to the public, but space is limited. (To inquire about the tour or to RSVP, please call 425-452-4392 or e-mail sltaylor@bellevuewa.gov.)

    —————————————————————————————

    Jul 20, 2013  

    BELLEVUE SHORELINE PLAN ADVANCES

    Jul 20, 2013  The Bellevue City Council agreed on a two-prong strategy for updating the city’s Shoreline Master Program, and, ultimately, forwarding the plan to the state Department of Ecology for final review and approval.

    The shoreline plan is required by state law and provides a regulatory framework for managing shorelines in Washington. Local plans must be consistent with Ecology guidelines.

    THE BELLEVUE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS BEEN WORKING ON SHORELINE ISSUES FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS.

    In May, the commission recommended that the council consider several components of the plan update that had been completed and posted online for review.

    ECOLOGY CONDUCTED AN INFORMAL REVIEW AND SENT A LETTER TO THE CITY CONTAINING COMMENTS ON THE COMMISSION’S RECOMMENDATIONS.

    On Monday, the council directed city staff to work with Ecology on the content of the commission’s recommendations and possibly narrow the range of issues that need to be resolved. COUNCIL MEMBERS ALSO DIRECTED STAFF TO BEGIN WORK TO FINALIZE THE REMAINING ELEMENTS OF THE SHORELINE PLAN UPDATE PRIOR TO FORMALLY SUBMITTING IT TO ECOLOGY. The council plans to review and discuss the plan update during a study session later this year.

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

    Mar 13, 2014

    COUNCIL TO DIGEST SHORELINE PLAN

    Mar 13, 2014 Bellevue city council members emphasized the importance of a strong public process Monday

    as they move through a series of presentations on the planning commission’s update to shoreline management regulations over the next four months.

    WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTING ITS UPDATED REGULATIONS AND RESTORATION PLAN,

    The council now will be briefed on the contents of the SMP over the next four months,

    with a review of recommended policies for shoreline overlay set for April 14, 2014

    ——————————————————————————————–

    Apr 30, 2014

    Council has more questions about shoreline plan

    —————————————————————————————

    Apr 30, 2014 Bellevue council members had more questions than answers by the end of Monday’s third round of informational sessions provided by staff about the progress of creating a shoreline master plan the city hopes will pass state muster.

    The City Council was updated Monday on the cumulative impact analysis and HOW BELLEVUE’S PLAN WILL ATTEMPT TO SATISFY A REQUIREMENT THAT NO NET LOSS OF ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS occur during future development and redevelopment along the city’s jurisdictional shorelines. THIS CAME AHEAD OF A MAY 5 PUBLIC HEARING for the city’s shoreline master plan, which will eventually go to the Washington Department of Ecology for final approval.

    Sarah Sandstrom, fisheries biologist for the Watershed Company, told council members “NO NET LOSS” goes further than just ecological functions of a shoreline, and includes also preserving shoreline views for residents and assessing the amount of reasonable development that could occur in the next 20 years along Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish.

    With a majority of Bellevue’s shorelines already developed, Sandstrom said residential redevelopment will likely be the most common occurrence and some new single-family development.

    The plan involves taking a qualitative look at the issue of NET LOSS, she said, as it’s hard to quantify restoration when a dock, for example, requires a certain amount of native vegetation to offset its impact as part of an “ECOLOGICAL TRADEOFF.”

    “Shoreline residential development falls under an exemption,” said Sandstrom of the no net loss requirement. “So, individual demonstration of no net loss is not required for shoreline residential development or for most permits that are issued as shoreline substantial development permits.”

    That does not mean the city will not need to ensure there is no net loss of ecological function, she told council, but that it will not need to be proven independently by the permit applicant. The project would be checked against current regulations that should result in no net loss.

    Bulkheads — vertical concrete barriers along shorelines — will not be allowed to be replaced under the shoreline plan, which instead favors a rocky slope. Bulkheads, said Sandstrom, negatively affects wave reflection. Bulkheads would need to be determined the only feasible option to be used.

    Sandstrom said another concern is that the plan proposes residential setbacks of 25 feet, which is less than the existing median setback of 50 feet for Lake Sammamish and Lake Washington.

    “The potential for houses moving closer to the shoreline has potential impacts in terms of water quality, moving pollutant generating surfaces closer to the shoreline,” she said.

    Should redevelopment of properties occur using a 25-foot setback, Sandstrom said there is also the potential of obstructing the views from other properties than are 50 feet from the shoreline.

    One option proposed to prevent this is a common line or streamline setback, which would require a new or redeveloped property to use the average setback of the two properties adjacent to it.

    Whether all of the effort being put into the plan will satisfy how the DOE defines “NO NET LOSS” may only be known once the shoreline master plan is submitted. According to Richard Settle, an attorney specializing in environmental and land use law with foster pepper PLLC, “NO NET LOSS” IS A NEW AND AMBIGUOUS CONCEPT FOR WASHINGTON.

    ——————————————————————————-

    (I have added this information)

    – See more at: http://www.foster.com/profile.aspx?id=97#sthash.Vh8jPovg.dpuf

    Richard L. Settle

    According to Richard Settle, an attorney specializing in environmental and land use law with foster pepper PLLC, “NO NET LOSS” IS A NEW AND AMBIGUOUS CONCEPT FOR WASHINGTON.

    —————————————————————————————

    Dick has more than 40 years of experience assisting clients with matters related to land use, the environment, and municipal law. His experience includes the representation of landowners, developers, municipalities, and citizen groups in virtually all areas of state and local land use regulation before state and local agencies and trial and appellate courts.

    Dick was also recently singled out by the highly-regarded Chambers USA legal directory, which annually interviews firm clients. In addition to a top-ranking of Foster Pepper’s Land Use group, Chambers described Dick as “the leading scholar in land use” and noted for his “vast experience in land use laws and regulations.”

    – See more at: http://www.foster.com/profile.aspx?id=97#sthash.Vh8jPovg.dpuf

    ————————————————————————————————–

     

    While the DOE requires NO NET LOSS of existing ecological functions, Settle said that implies a tradeoff of development and restoration. He said there’s also an assumption that restoration doesn’t have to be immediate, and could take as long as 20 years depending on the development.

    He added there’s also confusion as to how far back in time restoration is supposed to match up with shoreline conditions.

    “It’s definitely not pre-European discovery,” he said.

    Councilmember Kevin Wallace expressed his irritation that the council has been briefed three times on shoreline master plan development, however, confusion about meeting DOE standards remains. He added there also needs to be more done to address private property rights in the plan.

    “That is not helpful in deciding how to regulate someone’s private property, whether there is a net loss of ecological functions,” he said. “So, I just want to lodge my personal frustration. I’m just stunned that every jurisdiction in the state has to go through this and do this and in 2014 the state of the law on this is so unclear. … What we’re basically looking at is someone’s opinion,” he said.

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

    Jul 16, 2014

    Shoreline plan set for August public hearing

    Jul 16, 2014 at 3:10PM Bellevue Mayor Claudia Balducci made it clear to City Council on Monday they had precious little time left to approve options for a draft shoreline management plan AHEAD OF AN AUGUST PUBLIC HEARING.

    COUNCIL MEMBERS PASSED IT BACK TO STAFF, CONFIDENT PUBLIC OPINION WILL CHANGE IT AGAIN.

    Public access

    The council passed forward direction to have the SMP expand public access to commercial shoreline properties that expand more than 20 percent, such as marinas and yacht clubs. 

    LAND USE DIRECTOR CAROL HELLAND TOLD COUNCIL MEMBERS — CAUTIOUS OF VIOLATING PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS — access can be limited if security risks are present, and may also only apply to visual access in some cases.

    Siding with yacht clubs and marinas, Councilmember Jennifer Robertson pointed out they do offer public access — as long as people pay for it.

    Park development options

    Council members have heard public comment asking them to side with the city’s planning commission’s recommendation that Meydenbauer Beach Park — slated to be Bellevue’s most expensive park redeveloped at more than $40 million — REQUIRE a conditional use permit ahead of construction. The Meydenbauer Bay Neighborhood Association argues it would require a public hearing and allow residents to be more involved in its development.

    The City Council decided since a master plan exists for Meydenbauer Bay Park, future construction would be dealt with through administrative permitting and does not require a CUP.

    High water mark

    Robertson told council members they were making the wrong decision when they voted to set the high-water mark at a static elevation using the Bellevue Lake Study, which sets it at 31.8 feet, but allows for individualized assessment.

    She said she spoke to a scientist who told her the study was flawed, using two standard deviations. Councilmember John Chelminiak said the state Department of Ecology will make the ultimate decision on the SMP, and the council can choose differently, but the plan may not be accepted.

    “It is the latest study that has been done, and it is consistent, at least with what Sammamish set,” Chelminiak said.”I’m ready to vote,”

    ROBERTSON SAID. “I’M GOING TO BE AN EMPHATIC ‘NO’ “

    Setbacks, buffers and vegetation conservation

    Council members passed through an option to allow flexible setbacks of 50 feet, which property owners can buy down to 25 feet if they follow a string test and provide adequate vegetation conservation using set menu options.

    Balducci said the planning commission recommendation for 50-foot setbacks with greenscape options would result in net loss of native vegetation, and that replacing it with lawns is not what SMP regulations should encourage.

    Robertson said the commission’s option should be considered, but require greenscape only be allowed for two-thirds of the area required for vegetative conservation. She said string tests and menu options requiring unsightly native vegetation goes too far.

    Council members agreed to move forward with the 50-foot setbacks, string test and menu options, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING PUBLIC COMMENT WILL MODIFY THOSE OPTIONS to lessen vegetation requirements and allow greenscape where appropriate.

    “I would agree, this goes overboard,” Chelminiak said.

    A draft of the SMP will be developed by city staff ahead of an Aug. 4 public hearing, after which the council WILL DIRECT STAFF AGAIN on Sept. 8, 2014 on what regulations should be submitted to the DOE for review.

     

    • BRANDON MACZ,  Bellevue Reporter Staff Writer 

     

    Mar 13, 2014 Bellevue city council members emphasized the importance of a strong public process Monday

    as they move through a series of presentations on the planning commission’s update to shoreline management regulations over the next four months.

     Mar 13, 2014  WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY SUPPORTING ITS UPDATED REGULATIONS AND RESTORATION PLAN,

    The council now will be briefed on the contents of the SMP over the next four months,

    with a review of recommended policies for shoreline overlay set for April 14, 2014

    and review of the cumulative impact analysis and light rail component on April 28 2014 .

    —————————————————————————————

     

    April 30, 2014 Updating the SMP plan — mainly unchanged since 1974 — also has been an

    AN AREA OF FOCUS BY THE BELLEVUE PLANNING COMMISSION

    FOR MORE THAN FIVE YEARS,

     a process that was slated for completion in 2011. (2010?)

    April 30, 2014 Monday’s City Council study session laid out the progress of the planning commission,

     including fixes to a number of COMPLIANCY ISSUES within the SMP’s May 2013 draft FOLLOWING AN UNSOLICITED REVIEW BY the (DOE) Washington Department of Ecology, which has final say on approving the program.

    THE BOTTOM LINE AFTER SIX YEARS OF SMP UPDATE FRUSTRATION

    WHETHER ALL OF THE EFFORT BEING PUT INTO THE PLAN WILL SATISFY HOW THE DOE DEFINES “NO NET LOSS” MAY ONLY BE KNOWN ONCE THE SHORELINE MASTER PLAN IS SUBMITTED.

    The Clallam County SMP Update will have a significantly LARGER NEGATIVE impact on the economic development of  private property on the shorelines statewide significance rivers, lakes and streams IN OUR UNDEVELOPED COUNTY.

    Related Stories

     

     

     


  • FAIR? Illegal’s Taking U.S. Jobs and $$$

    FAIR? Illegal’s Taking U.S. Jobs and $$$

    Who knew there is a  (FAIR) FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM keeping track of  The fiscal burden of illegal immigration on United States Taxpayers

     AND  THE  

    ILLEGALS TAKING U.S. JOBS

    http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-aliens-taking-u-s-jobs

    ————————————————

    THE FISCAL BURDEN OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ON UNITED STATES TAXPAYERS

    http://www.fairus.org/issues/publications/state-cost-studies

    ———————————————————————————-

    WHERE ARE THE JOBS TAKEN BY ILLEGAL ALIENS LOCATED?

     Updated March 2013

    Below is a listing of the estimated number of jobs encumbered by illegal alien workers by state (and Washington, DC). THE ESTIMATE IS PROPORTIONAL TO FAIR’S ESTIMATE OF THE ILLEGAL ALIEN POPULATION RESIDING IN EACH STATE. The listing does not include an estimate for those states that have estimated illegal alien populations of 5,000 or fewer (Maine, Montana, North and South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming).

    State Jobs Taken
    Alabama 89,550
    Alaska 7,165
    Arizona 279,395
    Arkansas 39,400
    California 1,887,695
    Colorado 139,700
    Connecticut 85,965
    DC 25,075
    Delaware 21,490
    Florida 587,440
    Georgia 322,375
    Hawaii 21,490
    Idaho 21,490
    Illinois 394,015
    Indiana 85,965
    Iowa 46,565
    Kansas 50,145
    Kentucky 35,820
    Louisiana 42,985
    Maryland 211,335
    Massachusetts 136,115
    Michigan 82,385
    Minnesota 71,640
    Mississippi 21,490
    Missouri 42,985
    Nebraska 28,655
    Nevada 143,280
    New Hampshire 10,745
    New Jersey 293,720
    New Mexico 71,640
    New York 537,295
    North Carolina 293,720
    Ohio 78,805
    Oklahoma 60,895
    Oregon 121,785
    Pennsylvania 128,950
    Rhode Island 25,075
    South Carolina 50,145
    Tennessee 85,965
    Texas 1,296,670
    Utah 71,640
    Virginia 186,260
    Washington 197,010
    Wisconsin 68,055

     Updated March 2013

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

    FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM (FAIR)

    THE FISCAL BURDEN OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ON. UNITED STATES TAXPAYERS by Jack Martin, director of special projects and Eric A. Ruark, director of research.

    http://www.fairus.org/issues/publications/state-cost-studies

    ——————————————————————————————-

    WASHINGTON STATE estimated 275,000 illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children cost state’s taxpayers about $2.7 billion per year. That cost results from regular K-12 public schooling plus supplemental English instruction, medical services, policing, courts and incarceration as well as some welfare programs for the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens. The fiscal burden on Washingtonians has been growing as the size of the illegal alien population has grown. The fiscal burden translates into an annual fiscal burden of about $970 for each household headed by a U.S. citizen.

    ——————————————————————————

    CALIFORNIA’S FISCAL BURDEN HAS DOUBLED IN 10 YEARS 2004-2014

    2014 CALIFORNIANS bear an enormous fiscal burden as a result of an illegal alien population estimated at almost 3 million residents. The annual expenditure of state and local tax dollars on services for that population is $25.3 BILLION. That total amounts to a yearly burden of about

    2014   $2,370 FOR A HOUSEHOLD HEADED BY A U.S. CITIZEN.

    2004 Current Census Bureau data indicate that California’s illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers more than $10 BILLION PER YEAR IN 2004. This analysis looks specifically at the costs of education, medical care and incarceration, which are the major cost categories. Even without accounting for all of the other areas in which costs are being incurred by California’s taxpayers, this study indicates that the burden is substantial —

    2004 NEARLY $1,200 PER NATIVE-HEADED HOUSEHOLD — AND THAT THE COSTS ARE RAPIDLY INCREASING.

    ———————————————————————————————-

    2012The fiscal burden on OREGON’S taxpayers resulting from an estimated 170,000 illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children cost state’s taxpayers an estimated $1 billion per year. That fiscal cost results from regular K-12 public schooling plus supplemental English instruction, medical services, policing, courts and incarceration as well as some welfare programs for the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens. That fiscal burden has been growing as the size of the illegal alien population has grown. The annual outlay amounts to about $730 for each household headed by a U.S. citizen.

    ————————————————————————————–

    In 2013, illegal immigration cost TEXAS TAXPAYERS ABOUT $12.1 BILLION ANNUALLY. That amounts to more than $1,197 for every Texas household headed by a native-born or naturalized U.S. citizen. The taxes paid by illegal aliens — estimated at $1.27 billion per year — do not come close to paying for those outlays, but we include an estimate of revenue from sales taxes, property taxes, alcohol taxes, and cigarette taxes.

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

    NEW MEXICANS bear a fiscal burden of about $717 million per year in outlays due to an estimated 100,000 illegal alien residents and their U.S.-born children. Those outlays are in large part due to the education of an estimated 6,700 illegal alien students and an additional 30,170 U.S.-born children of illegal aliens. Their K-12 cost is about $438 million, and an additional $54 million is spent on their separate English instruction. Other costs relate to medical services, policing, courts and incarceration as well as some welfare programs for the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens. That fiscal burden has been growing as the size of the illegal alien population has grown. The annual outlay amounts to about $1,000 per household headed by a U.S. citizen.

    ————————————————————————————————–

    2014 Illegal immigration cost NORTH CAROLINA taxpayers more than $2 billion annually. That amounts to $578 annually for every North Carolina household headed by a native-born or naturalized U.S. citizen. The taxes paid by illegal aliens — estimated at less than $300 million per year — do not come close to paying for those outlays, and are not a true offset in any case. The burden on the state’s taxpayers would not be alleviated by adoption of an amnesty, but could be compounded if it attracted a new surge of illegal immigration as did the amnesty in 1986.

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

    2010 Illegal immigration costs federal and local taxpayers $113 billion a year. That is an average cost to native-headed households of $1,117 a year. This pioneering study brings together data and estimates of the fiscal cost resulting from federal, state and local expenditures on illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children. Separate estimates are available for each state. Copies by mail are $25.

    READ MORE AT: http://www.fairus.org/issues/publications/state-cost-studies