+menu-


  • Category Archives The We’s who WANT
  • 6/6/2012 Private Meeting with DOE Bureaucrats

    We had the meeting on June 6, 2012. (4) DOE employees, Gordon White (The WA State Manager of Shoreline Programs) Paula Ehlers (Regional Director ) Peter Skowland and Clallam County DOE rep. Jeffree Steward drove up from Olympia for our private meeting.

    Behind My Back | DOE Private meeting 6/6/2012

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/01/30/doe-private-meeting-662012/

    Jan 30, 2013 – THE WA STATE DOE, STATE POLICY PEOPLE asked Steve Gray Deputy Director Clallam County Department of Community Development for my …

    RED FLAG WARNING

    WA STATE DOE SMP IS THE SOLE PRODUCT OF DEPT. OF ECOLOGY

    ON APPEAL, THE WA STATE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IS THE SOLE PRODUCT OF THE APPOINTED DEPT. OF ECOLOGY.

    ——————————————————————-

      Behind My Back | It’s Who They Are That Concerns Me

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/10/17/itswho-theyare-that-concernsme

    Oct 17, 2017 · Behind My Back … AND, IT’S WHO THEY ARE THAT CONCERNS ALL OF US. To be continued…. This entry was posted in A Fearful Reminder, …

    INDEED, THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (SMP) IS THE SOLE PRODUCT OF APPOINTED BUREAUCRATS IN  WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY (DOE).

    —————————————————————————

    PRIOR TO THAT JUNE 6, 2012 MEETING WITH THE WA STATE DOE, STATE POLICY PEOPLE (THE BUREAUCRATS)

    I made a list of my concerns  as red flag warnings from Pearl Revere

    —————————————————-

    RED FLAG #1

    When American citizens are afraid of what their government is going to do to them, that is unacceptable to me. Jan. 26, 2011 DOE SMP Public Forum.

    ——————————————–

    RED FLAG #2

    When ELECTED OFFICIAL IGNORE THE  FEARS AND CONCERNS of  American citizens , that is unacceptable to me

    1. Senator Hargrove
    2. Rep. Van DeWege
    3. Rep. Tharinger
    4. Clallam County Sheriff Benedict
    5. Clallam County Commissioner Tharinger
    6. Commissioner Mike Chapman
    7. Commissioner Mike Doherty
    8. WA State Attorney General Rob McKenna

    —————————–

    RED FLAG #3

    FEAR AND CONCERNS  WA STATE AND  APPOINTED AGENCIES

    1. WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY
    2. AND OTHER UNKNOWN agencies?
    3. WHITE BOATS (identified themselves as for the DOE SMP)?
    4. WHITE BOATS (identified themselves as from the state)?
    5. Ariel surveillance of all Lake Sutherland homes, property and docks?
    6. DNR?
    7. WSDOT (inter agency contract with DFW) inspecting 101 culverts.
    8. DFW illegal trespass on all Lake Sutherland private property.

    —————————

    RED FLAG #4

    WA STATE DOE SMP IS THE SOLE PRODUCT OF DEPT. OF ECOLOGY ON APPEAL, THE WA STATE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IS THE SOLE PRODUCT OF THE APPOINTED DEPT. OF ECOLOGY.

     —————————

    RED FLAG #5

    WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY

    1. 1. DOE SMP WAC’S (Over stepping WA State SMP LAW)
    2. Failure to provide an SMP ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT FOR CLALLAM COUNTY.
    3. DOE WAC directs Clallam County on how to deny permits to private property owners until they submit to regulations and/or restrictions that may be illegal or unconstitutional at State level.
    4. Page 88 DOE WA State Public Trust Doctrine (DOE unconstitutional creation of law without due process). They admit in writing they have done it once?
    5. DOE approval of Shoreline Management Updates that are in conflict with RCW ______ in the protection of single family residence?
    6. DOE excessive setbacks, taking of private property, non-conforming, loss of value, use and enjoyment.
    7. DOE WAC, denies permitted development of private property and requires the taking of private property for public access.

    ————————————————————————–

    JUNE 6, 2012  MY PRIVATE MEETING WITH WA STATE DOE BUREAUCRATS

    Posted as  DOE PRIVATE MEETING 6/6/12 cont.

    The WA State DOE, state policy people asked Steve Gray Deputy Director Clallam County
    Department of Community Development for my contact information, by name as an individual, Pearl Rains Hewett.

    Regional Director Paula Ehlers called me at home and requested a private meeting with me.

    We had the meeting on June 6, 2012. (4) DOE employees, Gordon White (The WA State Manager of Shoreline Programs) Paula Ehlers (Regional Director ) Peter Skowland and Clallam County DOE rep. Jeffree Steward drove up from Olympia for our private meeting.

    Paula Ehlers told me I was allowed to invite 2-3 people. I invited (7).

    Steve Gray, Deputy Director/Planning Manager
    Dr.Robert Crittenden, biologist, expert witness and paid consultant.
    Dick Piling, Realtor, Republican Chairman of Clallam County
    Harry Bell, Business men’s assoc. He is Green Crow, the company owns a lot of WA State forestland, he is well know at state level SMP Advisory Committee
    Connie Beauvais, Manager of Crescent Water District, informed, active Member of the Appointed Planning Dept.
    MD retired, Karl Spees, SMP Advisory Committee, CAPR 13, very active private property owner
    Attorney Mary Pfaff, Member of the SMP Advisory Committee, had a Dr. appointment and did not attend.

    The WA State DOE Team, was a lot more interested in my guests, than they were in me.
    None of the invited (6) that attended were asked to leave.
    Interesting to note, we had the meeting at the courthouse (Steve Gray reserved the room) On the way into the DOE meeting, we ran into several interesting? interested? people. Sheila Rourke Miller, Jim McEntire and Mike Chapman.

    WHAT WAS THE MEETING AGENDA? Intel?
    DOE? I have no idea?
    I asked all of my invited guests to independently, based on their area of expertise and concerns, to prepare (5) questions for the DOE meeting.

    I personally, showed them the map, graphically demonstrating the SMP TAKING affected of the 175′, 150 plus 10′ setback on Burt Reid’s 7 acre priority feeder bluff private property. I spoke of the other property owners, all 474 of them, up to 88% would become totally non-conforming.

    I asked them, as I pointed to the map, as the US Supreme Court Justices asked an EPA witness in the 9 to zero ruling against the EPA, on the Sackett Case, “If this was your investment property? How happy would you be? What would you do? Just plant a few bushes and walk away?

    I did not take notes, I did listened and made an occasional indignant comment.
    By definition, “indignant” Angry at unfairness angry or annoyed at the apparent unfairness or unreasonableness of something.

    We did agreed that we were all American’s first and we do recognize private property rights.
    WHAT DID WE ACCOMPLISH – LEARN?

    Gordon White told us that, the appointed WA State Ecology Director Ted Sturdevant, (ANOTHER BUREAUCRAT)  is aware of the concerns of the Clallam County private property owners (all 3300 of us)

    WA State DOE is not required to provide an economic impact statement for Clallam County.

    My personal conclusion,
    The DOE is aware of the SMP economic impact on Clallam County government.
    The DOE is aware that they are TAKING private property value without compensation.
    The DOE is aware, that If private property owners keep fighting, we can reduce the setbacks, through our local government.

    My conclusions are based on the following
    18 months of research on line,
    WA State Law, protection of private property
    WAC’S, DOE proposed budget 2010-2013
    WA State Public Trust Doctrine
    Lawsuits, WA State Supreme Court Rulings
    United States Supreme Court Rulings
    Pacific Legal Foundation battles and BIG WINS
    documented information on many other WA State SMP’S,
    “Conspiracy Exposed” George C. Rains Sr.
    “Access Denied to inholder property”,
    Attending county meetings, public forums,
    Reading every word of the Clallam County DOE SMP Update and every SMP Public Comment,
    Clallam County Chapter 35,
    Water rights, reserved water rights,
    60 years of recorded history from George C. Rains Sr.
    To name just a FEW areas I have researched, questioning, challenging, communicating and disseminating all of it. (can what I know hurt them?)

    I have great things going for me.
    I AM AN AMERICAN
    I AM NOT AFRAID OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO DO TO ME.
    I freely play, the one card I have, guaranteed to me by the United States Constitution
    FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

    American’s working together to protect Constitutional and private property rights, they (light candles) by disseminating, research, keep us informed, reform us, post emails, encourage and support our FREEDOM.
    Karl Spees, CAPR 13
    Lois Krafsky-Perry, Citizen Review Online.
    Sue Forde Citizen Review Online
    Marv Chastin

    This entry was posted in Private Property Rights, Shoreline Management Plan, WA State Dept. of Ecology.

    ——————————————————————————

    MOVING FORWARD,  OCT 19, 2017

    WHAT ARE “YOU” GOING TO DO ABOUT THAT 2017 SMP UPDATE?

    WHAT AM I GOING TO ABOUT IT?

    THE USUAL……

    Post this 2017 SMP Update comment on behindmyback.org

    Then, email it to the Clallam County Board of Commissioners, at:  SMP@co.clallam.wa.us  and others.

    To be continued…


  • It’s Who They Are That Concerns Me

    THEY ARE THE GOVERNMENT’S BUREAUCRATS THAT INSTILLED FEAR IN THEIR OWN CITIZENS.

    THE PROGRESSIVE BUREAUCRATS, in WA DC, in Clallam County, WA State, Dept. of Ecology (DOE) and their globalist entourage etal. Paid, environmentalists’ Facilitators, including the United Nations Agenda.

    When the fearful citizens came forward  on Jan 26, 2011

    I said something.

    “When American citizen fear what their own government  is going to do to them, that is unacceptable to me.”

    At this point in time, Oct 17, 2017 why bother with the FEAR the Clallam County SMP Update caused, and became a matter of public record on Jan 26, 2011?

    ——————————————————————

    UPDATE JUNE 19, 2017

    IT’S  WHO THEY ARE THAT CONCERNS ALL OF US

    I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM A CONCERNED (FEARFUL) CLALLAM COUNTY CITIZEN LAST NIGHT….

    “PEARL, HAVE YOU READ THE NEW SMP UPDATE DRAFT?

    DO YOU KNOW HOW STEVE GREY AND (ESA CONSULTANT) MARGARET CLANCY HAVE CHANGED IT?

    DO YOU KNOW WHAT’S IN IT?”

    THE CONCERNED CITIZEN SAID,

    “PEARL, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT THIS?”

    SO I DID THIS ABOUT THAT

      Behind My Back | June 20, 2017 Clallam County SMP Update

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/06/20/6755

    My public comment Vested Clallam County Citizens have been fearful of how the SMP Update will affect their private property use since Jan 26, 2011. INDEED, THIS IS …

    ————————————————————————-

     WHAT HAVE I BEEN DOING ABOUT THAT? 2011-2017

    OVER 170 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE SMP UPDATE

    This is post # 1005 on my blog/website

      Behind My Back

    www.behindmyback.org

    Informing U.S. Citizens of how various government agencies are violating the Constitution, taking away private property rights, and infringing on American liberties …

    ——————————————————————–          

    THE PROGRESSIVE BUREAUCRATS REPUTATION PRECEDES THEM.

    ———————————————————————

    Progressive Economics: The Rise Of Bureaucracy In America – Forbes

    https://www.forbes.com/…/progressive-economics-two-americas-bureaucratic-arrogati…

    Oct 27, 2015 – Unelected bureaucrats promulgate more than ten times as many of the rules that Americans must obey as do our elected representatives.

    Regulation’s Stranglehold On Millennials’ Futures – Forbes

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/…/05/…/regulations-stranglehold-on-millennials-futures/

    May 25, 2015 – Americans are moving from obeying laws passed by elected bodies to REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY UNELECTED BUREAUCRATS. These pages of …

    ————————————————————————–

    At this point in time, Oct 17, 2017  

    WHAT AM I GOING TO DO ABOUT THAT CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE.

    Make this post # 1005 on my blog/website

    And make another SMP Update Public Comment.

    AT THIS POINT IN TIME, Oct 17, 2017  

    WHY BOTHER WITH THAT CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE.

    BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN AN INTEREST PARTY SINCE JAN 26, 2011

    —– Original Message —–

    From: zSMP

    Sent: FRIDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2017 8:57 AM

    SUBJECT: PROPOSED CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM (SMP)

    INTERESTED PARTIES,

    You are receiving this notice because you are on the County’s Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update email notification list. The County Planning Commission recommended to the Clallam County Board of Commissioners a Draft SMP (September 2017) to update and replace: (1) the existing 1976 SMP (last amended 1992); and (2) procedures for administration (e.g., permit process) of the SMP in Chapter 35.01, Shoreline Management, of the Clallam County Code (CCC).

    PUBLIC HEARING:  A public hearing on the recommended SMP before the Clallam County Board of Commissioners is scheduled for December 12, 2017 at 10:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible in the Commissioners’ Meeting Room of the Clallam County Courthouse, 223 East 4th Street, Room 160, Port Angeles, Washington. All persons wishing to comment are welcome to either submit their written comments before the hearing is commenced or present written and/or oral comments in person during the public hearing. Written comments should be sent to the Clallam County Board of Commissioners, 223 East 4th Street, Suite 4, Port Angeles, WA 98362-3015, or emailed to:  SMP@co.clallam.wa.us

    REGIONAL PUBLIC FORUMS:  Prior to the public hearing, the County Dept. of Community Development will host 4 public forums to provide information on the SMP:

    Thursday, November 2, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.

    Sekiu Community Center, 42 Rice St., Sekiu WA

    Monday, November 6, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.

    Rainforest Arts Center, 35 N. Forks Ave., Forks WA

    Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.

    Clallam County Courthouse, 223 E. 4th St., Port Angeles WA

    Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.

    John Wayne Marina, 2577 W. Sequim Bay Rd., Sequim WA

    SUMMARY:  The SMP addresses compliance with the state Shoreline Management Act (SMA), RCW 90.58, and state SMP Update Guidelines (WAC 173-26).  It includes goals and policies, regulations for new development and uses, and administrative procedures (e.g., permit process).

    AREAS SUBJECT TO SMP:  The SMP applies to all marine waters, reaches of rivers and streams where the mean annual flow is more than 20 cubic feet per second, and lakes and reservoirs 20 acres or greater in size that are under the jurisdiction of Clallam County and to lands adjacent to these water bodies (together with lands underlying them) extending landward 200 feet in all directions from the ordinary high water mark; floodways and contiguous floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such floodways; and associated wetlands and river deltas.  To consolidate regulations, the proposed SMP also includes the full extent of the mapped 100-year floodplain and land necessary for buffers to protect critical areas as defined in RCW 36.70A that are overlapping or otherwise coincident with the shoreline jurisdiction as allowed pursuant to RCW 90.58.030(2)(d)(i,ii). The City of Forks is also considering the SMP for rivers inside the city limits. Maps showing the approximate lateral extent of the shoreline jurisdiction and proposed shoreline environmental designations are found in Exhibit A-Shoreline Maps of the proposed SMP.

    SMP DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION: The Draft SMP—Planning Commission Recommendation (September 2017) is available for review at the Department of Community Development in the Clallam County Courthouse and on the County‘s SMP Update web page at:  http://www.clallam.net/LandUse/SMP.html

    The existing 1976 SMP (last amended 1992) and related administrative procedures in Chapter 35.01 CCC, Shoreline Management; supporting SMP Update documents including, but not limited to Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Reports, Shoreline Restoration Plan, Cumulative Impacts Analysis and No Net Loss Report, and Consistency Review Report; and other information are also available at the Department and on the County SMP Update website.  For questions, contact the Department at 360-417-2420.

    Steve Gray, Planning Manager

    Clallam County Department of Community Development

    ————————————————————-

    The bottom line…

    AT THIS POINT IN TIME, Oct 17, 2017  

    WHY BOTHER WITH THAT CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE.

    BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN AN INTEREST PARTY SINCE JAN 26, 2011

    AND, IT’S  WHO THEY ARE THAT CONCERNS ALL OF US

    To be continued….


  • SMP 19 Unresolved Issues 2012-2017

    Another 2017 SMP Update concern to Clallam County Commissioner

    At the July 10, 2012 SMP Committee Advisory meeting

    Two thirds or more of the SMP Advisory Committee

    VOTED TO WALK  AWAY AND LEAVE 19 UNRESOLVED SMP ISSUES ON THE TABLE,

    against my suggestion that we needed an additional August meeting to complete our duty to the citizens and private property owners, as SMP advisors, prior to the final SMP draft proposal being written.

    LEAVING 19 OR MORE PROPOSED SMP DRAFT ISSUES RELATED TO THE DOE SMP TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY without argument, suggestions or comment?

    ———————————————————————-

    Part two, What happened to us? the 3000 and the 19 unresolved issues behind our back, behind closed doors by the SMP Update bureaucrats and the paid facilitators ?

    ——————————————————————————–

    THE SMP Advisory Committee

    Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee—– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Lois Perry ; Sue Forde ; zSMP

    Cc: Karl Spees ; Jo Anne Estes ; Katie Krueger ; connie beauviasMarv Chastain ; Jay Petersen ; harry bell ; Steve Gray ; notac; ; jim McEntire ; smiller@co.clallam.wa.us

    Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 3:13 PM

    Subject: SMP COMMENT ON THE SMP Advisory Committee

    This is my comment

    on the SMP Advisory Committee

    George C. Rains Estate

    Concerned Member SMP Advisory Committee

    At the July 10, 2012 SMP Committee Advisory meeting

    Two thirds or more of the SMP Advisory Committee

    VOTED TO WALK  AWAY FROM THE TABLE,

    against my suggestion that we needed an additional August meeting to complete our duty to the citizens and private property owners, as SMP advisors, prior to the final SMP draft proposal being written.

    The SMP Advisory Committee that  represent the 3300 Clallam County shoreline private property owners is approximately as follows.

    1/3 = 10 private interest groups

    1/3 = 10 paid government employees

    1/3 = 10 SMP Affected taxpaying private property owners (only 8 at this meeting)

    DOES THE MAKEUP OF THIS COMMITTEE EXPLAINS WHY?

    THEY VOTED TO WALK  AWAY FROM THE TABLE

    LEAVING 19 OR MORE PROPOSED SMP DRAFT ISSUES RELATED TO THE DOE SMP TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY without argument, suggestions or comment?

     ——————————————————————-

    July 14, 2012 FIRST SMP PUBLIC COMMENT

    On the 19 unresolved SMP issues that went to the Planning Dept …

    Jul 4, 2015 THREE YEARS LATER SECOND SMP PUBLIC COMMENT

    On the 19 unresolved SMP issues that went to the Planning Dept …

    19 Unresolved SMP Issues AN SMP Public … – Clallam County

    www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/635_PHewett.pdf

    Jul 4, 2015 – On 19 unresolved SMP issues that went to the Planning … The 19 unresolved SMP issues on July 10, 2012 ….. Of …www.behindmyback.org.

    —————————————————————-

    July 14, 2012 FIRST SMP PUBLIC COMMENT continued…

    (1) DISCUSSED AND QUESTIONED? The undecipherable table with the percentages, the 15% of whatever? It made no sense to me either? Jay Pedersen could help with  his knowledge of what he thought it actually was/represented? It would be very helpful to members of the committee.

    The written text related to the undecipherable table below

    1. Minor new development Grading shall not exceed 500 cubic yards; and ii. Land disturbing activities shall not exceed 20,000 square feet, except that on parcels less than five (5) acres, land disturbing activities must not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the gross parcel size; and iii. The total cumulative footprint of all structures on a parcel must be less than 4,000 square feet; and iv. The total cumulative impervious surface area on the parcel must be less than ten (10) . All land disturbing activities must be located on slopes less than fifteen (15) percent; and vi. All land disturbing activities must comply with any critical area buffer and other protection standards established for parcels created by land division.

     

    (2) DISCUSSED AND QUESTIONED? NOT ADDRESSED

    The limited number of trained specialists,  Jay’s comment was in reference to the county SMP  requiring specialists, to perform the mitigation tests. If a property owner could even find one to do the testing? The time delay and cost would be prohibitive.

     

    (3) PRESENTED NOT DISCUSSED

    SMP Excessive restrictions on all forms of developments. I am extremely concerned about the additional restrictive requirements written into the SMP update for major development. They are counter- productive to the economic recovery of Clallam County, they restrict the ability of business and citizens to create employment opportunities in both Clallam County and Port Angeles. Why are the Dept. of Community Development and the planning biting off their own feet? Why are they creating these obsessive restrictions on all developments?

    The way Steve was talking it, with all the added bells and whistles, it was to make any form of mitigation for anything totally infeasible, creating a like it or lump it, situation for all development by business or private shoreline property owners.

     

    (4) PRESENTED- DISCUSSED but NOT ADDRESSED

    The cumulative effect of setbacks SHORELINE, WETLAND and HABITAT   Ed Bowen did a good job when he pointed out an example of the enormous  loss of private property use with the setbacks on Lake Pleasant, in conjunction with the yet undetermined, Clallam County DOE designated WETLANDS.

     

    (5) PRESENTED NOT ADDRESSED

    More additional HABITAT setbacks

    It was impressive how smoothly Margaret and Steve just added on the additional habitat setbacks, but did not mention endangered species.

    1. Rare, endangered, threatened and sensitive species means plant and animal species identified and listed by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as being severely limited or threatened with extinction within their native ranges.
    2. Threatened species means a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future, as classified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, or the federal Endangered Species Act.

     

    (6) ED BOWEN COMMENT NOT ADDRESSED

    1. Recording means the filing of a document(s) for recordation with the County auditor.

     

    (7) NO DISCUSSION OR RESOLUTION (not required by law)

    1. Restoration means the reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal of fill, removal of intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre-European settlement conditions.

     

    (8) DOE DESIGNATED WETLANDS NOT IDENTIFIED OR INCORPORATED

    Wetlands have no boundaries, adjoining wetlands could restrict the use of your property.

    1. Wetlands means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances 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 for non-wetland 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 created as mitigation and wetland modified for approved land use activities shall be considered as regulated wetlands.

     

    PROHIBITED EXCEPTION DISCUSSED AND RESOLVED BY RCW

    Provisions for protection SHALL be included in SMP up date.

    1. Revetment means a sloped wall constructed of rip-rap or other suitable material placed on stream banks or other shorelines to retard bank erosion and minimize lateral stream movement.
    2. Rip-rap means dense, hard, angular rock free from cracks or other defects conductive to weathering often used for bulkheads, revetments or similar slope/bank stabilization purposes.

     

    (9) DISCUSSED UNDEFINED NO RESOLUTION [insert final date]

    3.1.1 Shoreline Environment Designations

    1. A shoreline environment designation has been assigned to each segment of the shoreline in accordance with this section. The designations are based on the following general factors:
    2. The ecological functions and processes that characterize the shoreline, together with the degree of human alteration as determined by the [insert final date] Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report and subsequent technical analyses; and

     

    (10) NOT PRESENTED OR  DISCUSSED

     EXPENSE OF SPECIALISTS FOR APPROVAL

    1. c. Hazard Tree Removal: Removal of a hazard tree may be allowed in the buffer when trimming is not sufficient to address the hazard. Where the hazard is not immediately apparent to the Administrator, the hazard tree determination SHALL be made after Administrator review of a report prepared by a qualified arborist or forester.

    (11) NOT PRESENTED OR  DISCUSSED

    EXPENSE OF SPECIALISTS FOR APPROVAL

    1. Invasive Species Management: Removing invasive, non-native shoreline vegetation listed on the Clallam County Noxious Weed List may be allowed in the buffer when otherwise consistent with this Program. The disturbed areas must be promptly revegetated using species native to western Washington. The Administrator SHALL require a vegetation management plan prepared by a qualified ecologist, forester, arborist, or landscape architect prior to approving the invasive species removal. The vegetation management plan SHALL  identify and describe the location and extent of vegetation management. For properties within designated landslide or erosion hazard areas, the Administrator may require review of the vegetation management plan by an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer to ensure that the vegetation management will not cause or exacerbate hazards associated with soil or slope instability. The location and size of the invasive species management area SHALL be clearly defined on the site plan

     

    (12) NOT DISCUSSED – ADDRESSED OR RESOLVED

    Taking of Value of view property by limited 20% KEYHOLE view corridor. If 50% of the value of your shoreline property is for the view? Losing 80% the view value will affect the true and real value of your property

    4.2.4 Regulations – Shoreline Buffers

    . 3. Buffer Condition: Shoreline buffers shall be maintained in a predominantly well vegetated and undisturbed condition to ensure that the buffer provides desired buffer functions including shade, habitat, organic inputs, large woody debris, slope stability, water storage, biofiltration, contaminant removal, and fine sediment control. Up to eighty percent (80%) of the buffer area shall be vegetated with native trees and shrubs. The remaining twenty percent (20%), or at least fifteen (15) linear feet of the water frontage, whichever is greater, may be retained as lawn for active use.

    1. Allowed Uses and Buffer Modifications: The Administrator may allow limited clearing, thinning, and/or pruning to accommodate specific shoreline buffer uses and modifications identified in this section. Such allowances shall not require compensatory mitigation provided that the amount and extent of the clearing, limbing, and/or pruning are the minimum necessary to accommodate the allowed use and all other requirements of the Program are met:

    (13) view corridor NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED limited and selective tree removal, pruning, and/or limbing in the buffer

    1. View Corridors: The Administrator may allow limited and selective tree removal, pruning, and/or limbing in the buffer to create a view of the shoreline when otherwise consistent with this Program. The removal, pruning, and/or limbing shall not require any ground-disturbing equipment and shall not materially alter soils or topography.

    (15) NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED

    EXPENSE OF SPECIALISTS FOR APPROVAL

    Administrator shall require a view clearance plan

    The Administrator shall require a view clearance plan prepared by a qualified ecologist, forester, arborist, or landscape architect prior to approving the view corridor. The view clearance plan shall identify and describe the location and extent of the proposed tree removal, pruning, and limbing and shall demonstrate compliance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Standards for Tree Care Operations (Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management – Standard Practices). For properties within designated landslide or erosion hazard areas, the Administrator may require review of the view clearance plan by an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer to ensure that the proposed removal, pruning, and/or limbing will not cause or exacerbate hazards associated with soil or slope instability. The location and size of the view corridor shall be clearly defined on the site plan.

    1. Private Pathways: Private pathways which provide pedestrian access to the shoreline may be allowed within the buffer provided they are constructed of pervious material, are less than or equal to six (6) feet wide, and follow a route that minimizes erosion and gullying

     

    (16)  NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED

    Taking of Private property for Public access

    The removal of any reference to  the taking of private property for Public access, Clallam County has the highest public access to public land in WA State. At the Private DOE meeting on June 6, 2012 Gordon White agreed that we have sufficient cause 51% to remove any taking of private property for public access.

     

    (17) NOT DISCUSSED, MENTIONED AND DISMISSED

    EPA. Precautionary setback are not legal

     As questioned by Rob McKenna, why are the DOE SMP setbacks more restrictive the EPA. Precautionary setback are not legal.

     

     (18) LEGALITY OF 80% TAKING  NOT DISCUSSED NOT ADDRESSED

    ONE HUNDRED PERCENT (100%) NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

    1. At least eighty percent (80%) of the buffer area between the structures and the shoreline and/or critical area is maintained in a naturally vegetated condition.

    What provisions have the DOE made to  stay within the LAW?

    “It is now undisputed that the county had no authority to deprive residents of the use of their own private property.” CAO’S “65 PERCENT” SEIZURE OF PROPERTY PLF Lauds Supreme Court for “Driving a Stake Through One of the Most Extreme Assaults on Property Rights in the U.S.”

    SEATTLE, WA; March 4, 2009: The Washington Supreme Court

    the CAO limited rural landowners with five acres or more to clearing only 35 percent of their property, forcing them to maintain the remaining 65 percent as native vegetation indefinitely. Rural landowners owning less than five acres were allowed to clear only 50 percent of their parcels. Affected landowners had to continue paying taxes on the portion of the property rendered useless by the CAO.

    (19) NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED

     The provisions of WAC173-26-191 anything that may be  illegal and unconstitutional at a State level, may also be  illegal and unconstitutional at a county level AND shall not be included in Clallam County SMP update.

    ——————————————————————————-

    WAC 173-26-191

    Agency filings affecting this section

    Master program contents.

    2 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.

    —————————————————————————–

    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.

    So?  The illegal and unconstitutional policies on private property,

    may be pursued by other means and implemented through an administrative process established by local government

    ————————————————————————–

    Oct 14, 2017 added information on Clallam County SMP Update, paid facilitators MARGARET CLANCY, JIM KRAME .

    No Net Loss of Ecological Function?

    This work was funded through a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

    Prepared by MARGARET CLANCY, JIM KRAMER and Carol MacIlroy

    prohibit new building lots from being created in the 100-year floodplain limit new roads in the floodplain that unregulated development or illegal activities will not occur at a level significant enough to affect flood storage. It will not be possible to fully avoid all impacts from the development of these lots through SMP policies and regulations.

    ————————————————————————–

    So?  The illegal and unconstitutional policies on private property, may be pursued by other means and implemented through an administrative process established by local government?

    Through, an administrative process established by the Clallam County DCD Planning Dept?

    ———————————————————————-

    (19) NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED

     The provisions of WAC173-26-191

    anything that may be  illegal and unconstitutional at a State level

    may also be  illegal and unconstitutional at a county level

    AND, shall not be included in Clallam County SMP update.

    ——————————————————————————-

    If any of you read this complete comment? You understand fully, why I am critical of the two thirds majority of the Advisory Committees that failed to complete their responsibility to the citizens and private property owners of Clallam County, prior to the final SMP Draft Proposal.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ———————————————————–

    WHO WERE THE SMP ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

    THAT VOTED TO WALK  AWAY FROM THE TABLE

    LEAVING 19 OR MORE PROPOSED SMP DRAFT ISSUES RELATED TO THE DOE SMP TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY without argument, suggestions or comment?

    ———————————————————————————-

    PDF]

    Clallam County Shoreline Master Program Committee …

    www.clallam.net/LandUse/…/ClCoSMPC2013.pdf

    Clallam County

    DOES THE MAKEUP OF THIS COMMITTEE EXPLAINS WHY?

    THEY VOTED TO WALK  AWAY FROM THE TABLE

    LEAVING 19 OR MORE PROPOSED SMP DRAFT ISSUES RELATED TO THE DOE SMP TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY without argument, suggestions or comment?

    *Chris Byrnes: WA Department of Fish & Wildlife

    … *Darlene Schanfald: Olympic Environmental Council; Friends of Miller Peninsula State Park …

    *Jeffree Stewart: WA Department of Ecology …

    *Kevin MacCartney: Sierra Club; Shoreline Property Owner … *Denotes SMP Committee members/alternates attending a majority of …

    SMPC Attendees:

    Andy Stevenson Andy Stevenson … Proposed SMP regulations would allow them to be replaced if …. Chapter 6: Much of this section is directly from the Washington Administrative Code 173.27 or … requirements are specified by state law.

    —————————————————————

    Arnold Schouten

    MRC Strategic Plan – Northwest Straits Marine Conservation …

    www.nwstraits.org/uploads/pdf/Orientation/MRC-strategicplans.pdf

    by S Plan

    Arnold Schouten … the Northwest Straits area of Puget Sound, Washington State. …… Ensure that SMP update includes policies that minimize …

    ———————————————————————

    Bob Vreeland

    ——————————————————————————-

    Darlene Schanfald eccentric, Secretary. Olympic Environmental Council

    —————————————————————–

    George Chandler

    George Eastman

    ————————————–

    Hansi Hals

    Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe – Natural Resources Staff

    www.jamestowntribe.org/programs/nrs/nrs_staff.htm

    Environmental Planning. Hansi Hals. Environmental Planning Program Manager … Natural Resources Department. 1033 Old Blyn Hwy. Sequim, WA 98382.

    ————————————————–

    Harry Bell Green Crow

    Jay Petersen 4C’s Engineering

    Jeffree Stewart DOE

    John Cambalik

    —————————————————-

    Judy Larson very nasty woman

    2013-04 notes.pdf – Olympus.net

    home.olympus.net/~dungenesswc/docs/…/2013-04%20notes.pdf

    Apr 10, 2013 – Judy Larson served as chair in Scott Chitwood’s absence.

    ———————————————————

    Karl Spees

    ———————————————————-

    Katie Krueger Tribe

    —————————————————————–

    Kevin MacCartney Sierra Club

    ———————————————————

    Mary Pfaff-Pierce (usually not there)

    ———————————————–

    Matt Beirne Tribe

    ————————————————————-

    Matt Heins Tribe

    ———————————————-

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ——————————————————————

    Randy Johnson tribal rep (aka nasty randy)

    —————————————-

    Ron Gilles Sequim Realtor

    ———————————————-

    Theresa Nation WDF

    County Staff & Consultants:

    Margaret Clancy (Consultant) ESA Adolfson’s Compliancy expert with 24 WA State SMP’s Under their belt.

    https://www.google.com/#q=esa+adolfson+margaret+clancy+health+of+puget+sound&start=30

    Shoreline management plan meeting brings unanswered …

    www.citizenreviewonline.org/2011/Oct/shoreline_meeting.html

    Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer (of Kramer Consulting Inc.), representing … The “Public Participation Strategy” as presented by ESAAdolphson was that “The …. for Puget Sound; Co-Manager AT PUGET SOUND PARTNERSHIP 2006; and Project

    opportunities to improve shoreline management in puget

    www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/shorelines/docs/exec_summary.pdf

    NFWF Project: 2010-0060-002 Protect Puget Sound Shoreline … Margaret Clancy ( ESA Adolfson) … effort to recover Puget Sound by 2020. .

    —————————————————

    Senior planner for SMP Steve Gray

    Sheila Roark Miller

    Hannah Merrill

    Public Attendees

    Jesse Waknitz, Port of PA

    ————————————————-

    Glen Irwin, Shoreline Landowner

    ————————————————–

    Charles Weller, Shoreline Landowner really a good guy

    ———————————————–

    1. McNerthney, Shoreline Landowner

    ——————————————————–

    Connie Beauvais, CC Planning Commissioner really a good lady

    ——————————————————–

    Michele d’Hemecourt, NOLT

    ——————————————————————–

    Robert Knapp, James town S’Klallem tribe  (used to be with stream keepers)

    Andy Stevenson Andy Stevenson … Proposed SMP regulations would allow them to be replaced if …. Chapter 6: Much of this section is directly from the Washington Administrative Code 173.27 or … requirements are specified by state law.

    —————————————————-

    Arnold Schouten

    MRC Strategic Plan – Northwest Straits Marine Conservation …

    www.nwstraits.org/uploads/pdf/Orientation/MRC-strategicplans.pdf

    by S Plan

    the Northwest Straits area of Puget Sound, Washington State. …… Ensure that SMP update includes policies that minimize …

    ————————————————-

    Bob Vreeland

    Andrew Stevenson Port Angeles Arnold Schouten Port …

    www.clallam.net/RealEstate/…/SMPCmemberList1-2012….

    Clallam County

    Bob Vreeland. Port Angeles … Sequim. Olympic Environmental Council; Friends of Miller Peninsula State Park. 7 … Countywide. WA Department of Ecology.

    —————————————————————-

    Darlene Schanfald eccentric, Secretary. Olympic Environmental Council

    George Chandler

    George Eastman

    ————————————–

    Hansi Hals

    Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe – Natural Resources Staff

    www.jamestowntribe.org/programs/nrs/nrs_staff.htm

    Environmental Planning. Hansi Hals. Environmental Planning Program Manager … Natural Resources Department. 1033 Old Blyn Hwy. Sequim, WA 98382.

    Harry Bell Green Crow

    Jay Petersen 4C’s Engineering

    Jeffree Stewart DOE

    John Cambalik

    —————————————————-

    Judy Larson very nasty woman

    2013-04 notes.pdf – Olympus.net

    home.olympus.net/~dungenesswc/docs/…/2013-04%20notes.pdf

    Apr 10, 2013 – Judy Larson served as chair in Scott Chitwood’s absence. … Agenda change: Hannah Merrill will give the SMP Update, instead of Cathy Lear. … US Army Corps of Engineers; EPA; WA Dept. of Ecology; WA State Recreation.

    Karl Spees

    Katie Krueger Tribe

    Kevin MacCartney Sierra Club

    Mary Pfaff-Pierce (usually not there)

    Matt Beirne Tribe

    Matt Heins Tribe

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Randy Johnson nasty randy (tribal rep.)

    Ron Gilles

    Theresa Nation WDF

    County Staff & Consultants:

    Margaret Clancy (Consultant)

    Steve Gray

    Sheila Roark Miller

    Hannah Merrill

    Public Attendees

    Jesse Waknitz, Port of PA

    Glen Irwin, Shoreline Landowner

    Charles Weller, Shoreline Landowner really a good guy

    1. McNerthney, Shoreline Landowner

    Connie Beauvais, CC Planning Commissioner really a good lady

    Michele d’Hemecourt, NOLT

    Robert Knapp, JS’K

    ———————————————–

    REMEMBER… This is just 

    Part Two: The history of us, the collective 3000?

    What happens to one of us, happens to all of us.

    You the elected are responsible for what happens to all of us.

    The Bottom Line….

    As one of the  3000, I shall continue my comments and concerns on the SMP Update

    day after day, week after week, month after month as I have done prolifically since 2011.

    To be continued….


  • SMP Update Concerns to Commissioners

    Oct 13, 2017 You, the elected Commissioners are now, at this late date, concerned about the Public Participation Strategy for the 2017 Clallam County SMP Update.

    You are planning open meetings, asking for public comments, and yes, you are planning the date for a public forum.

    ————————————————————————

    Just noting, 2010: The Clallam County Board of Commissioner’s expects to adopt a final SMP-Update Public Participation Strategy extended to March 16, 2010 @ 10 a.m. at the Board of Clallam County Commissioners Regular Meeting, 223 East 4th Street, Room 160, Port Angeles, Washington.

    ———————————————————————-

    Part one: Oct 13, 2017 , The history of us, the collective 3000 private shoreline property vested stakeholders? What happened to us between Dec 5, 2009 and Jan 26, 2011?

    Dec 5, 2009. the FIRST  public comment on the SMP Update was submitted and posted.

    Jan 26, 2011  The  SMP  Public participation strategy? The first, by invitation only SMP Update meeting was held  by  ESA Adolfson’s  paid, facilitators Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer.

    Not one of  Clallam County’s elected representatives bothered to attended this meeting. Not, Commissioners’, Tharanger, Chapman, Doherty or DCD director Miller. It was a bureaucrats meeting.

    What you, the elected, don’t know, have been denied access to by bureaucrats,  about SMP Update  600 plus public comments can hurt all Clallam County citizens.

    ——————————————————————————-

    2009: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    ·         120509 – DemComm – G  #1  CLALLAM COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE

    Resolution regarding County Shoreline Management Plan

     WHEREAS the nature of amendments to the plan as might be adopted by the Clallam County Board of Commissioners mayor may not adequately protect the quality of local waters from harmful development; and

    WHEREAS participation in the Shoreline Management Plan review process will be open to the public in a series of meetings over the next two years or more;

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

    ·         December 5, 2009

    ————————————————————————-

    Bureaucrats created the final Clallam County Shoreline 2017 SMP Draft Update.

    Oct 13, 2017 I am just one concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property in Clallam County WA.

    However, what happens to one of us, on the Clallam County Shoreline Update (SMP) collectively happens to all 3000 of us.

    The SMP ball is now in your court. and just asking?  have you, the elected collectively, or as  an individual elected official, taken the time (due diligence) to visit and read the SMP public court of opinion,600 plus comments on the Clallam County WA SMP Update?

    What happened to the online 600 plus SMP Update Public Comments? You, the elected, are the now, the ultimate decision maker. Have the SMP Public comments of private property owners been taken into consideration by you as a Clallam County Commissioners in the final stages of SMP Update?

     —————————————————————–

    Part one: The history of us, the collective 3000? What happened to us?

    Jan 26, 2011, I was a concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property.

    I was one of  thirty (30) selected individuals, to be invited to attend the first Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan Update  (SMP) meeting.

    The meeting was presented by  ESA Adolfson’s  paid facilitators , Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer.

    In spite of the fact that it was a  private public  meeting, by invitation only, sixty (60) concerned citizens showed up and packed the room.

    Not one of  Clallam County’s elected representatives bothered to attended this meeting.

    Not, Commissioners’, Tharanger, Chapman, Doherty or DCD director Miller. It was a bureaucrats meeting.

    When I complained about it at a commissioners public meeting, after the meeting Commissioner Chapman insulted me, and said if I didn’t like the way things were going I should sign up for the SMP Update Citizens Advisory Committee.

    I did, I was appointed by DCD Miller.

    Cathy Lear said I must read everything. I did and that was when I started making Public SMP Update Comments.

    —————————————————–

    By May 5, 2011,

    I was an angry, concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property and a member of the appointed Citizens Advisory Committee

    050511 – PHewett – G

      #70 We, as a Citizens Advisory 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. “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of WAC 173-26-191 illegal or unconstitutional.

    —————————————————————————-

    By July 07, 2012, I  was a very frustrated, angry, concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property and  a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee

    July 7, 2012 I was so concerned about the SMP Update I compiled the

    COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS 2009-2012

    I am concerned with, the comment numbers with no comments? The fact that it took me 12 hours to compile the following information?

    Unfortunately the links 2009-2012 SMP public comments  are not  linked to the SMP Update

    Not one of Clallam County elected representative from 2011 is still in office.

    Please note, there is only one county employee, Steve Gray, still employed by Clallam County that is still rewriting and revising the SMP Update. Unless? County employee Cathy Lear is representing someone?

    And, Steve is still being directed  by the ESA Adolfson  paid consultant, facilitator  Margret Clancy.

    Just saying, Margaret Clancy is not legally responsible for whatever content she and Steve decide to put into the SMP Update.

    Just asking? Have Clallam County elected representatives sought or received any legal counsel?

    Am I concerned? YOU BET…

    ARE YOU CONCERNED? Read the 2009-2012 comments, go find and read the 600 plus SMP public comments,. You, the elected, not bureaucrats, are responsible for the fate of Clallam County, you are the ultimate and final SMP Update decision makers.

    SHOULD YOU, THE ELECTED BE CONCERNED?  You decide.

    A concerned vested stakeholder of private shoreline property in Clallam County WA.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Trustee George C.Rains Sr. Estate

    —————————————————————

    July 07, 2012 COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS 2009-2012

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: undisclosed concerned citizens and elected officials

    Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2012 10:02 AM

    THE SHORT FORM IS AN EMAIL

    CLICK ON THE TOP LINK TO READ THE FULL 6300 WORD DOCUMENT

    Subject: COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS 2009-2012

     

    • TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
    • If you want to read the  full SMP comment? Go to the Clallam County SMP website. Click on Public comments. Identify the comment by using the name and the date (no comment #  is displayed).
    • I am concerned with, the comment numbers with no comments? The fact that it took me 12 hours to compile the following information? If the online Public Comments will be compiled? Read by the decision makers? And if the comments of private property owners will be taken into considereration by the Planning Dept. and the Clallam County Commissioners in the final SMP Update? Public Forums are being scheduled and the private property owners of Clallam County need to be advised.
    • Pearl Rains Hewett concerned member of the DOE SMP Advisory Committee
    • 050511 – PHewett – G
    • #70 We, as a Citizens Advisory 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. “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of WAC 173-26-191 illegal or unconstitutional.
    •  

    COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP COMMENTS 2009-2012

    July:

    ·         070212 – RKonopaski – G

    ·         #284 clarifying the setbacks on marine shorelines?

    June:

    ·         062312 – ESpees – G

    ·         #283 excessive 175-150 + 10 foot setbacks

    ·         061712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #282 DOE private meeting

    ·         061412 – PHewett – G

    ·         #281 150′ wetland setbacks Futurewise and Grays Harbor

    ·         061412 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #280 WHAT IS THE ECONOMIC FUTURE OF CLALLAM COUNTY?

    ·         061112 – PHewett – G

    ·         # 279 See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987). precautionary setbacks

    ·         060912 – PHewett – G

    ·         #278 25  No setback increases See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987).

    ·         060712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #277 Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights v. Sims. 65% taking violates law

    ·         060312 – ESpees – G

    ·         #276 No taking of private property for public access

    May:

    ·         053012 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #275 RE-DESIGNATE TO FRESHWATER RURAL

    ·         052912 – PHewett – G

    ·         #274 fight back COORDINATION PROCESS 43 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1712

    ·         052412 – RCahill – SMPdraft

    ·         #273 the spirit and intent of the Department of Ecology’s Shore land’s and Environmental Assistance, publication number 09-06-029, shall and should, be changed to may.

    ·         052212 – JBlazer – SED

    ·         #272 The problem… my parcel and the 2 parcels to the south would be hard pressed to build residences that take advantage of the marine view using the 175 ft setback in the proposed designation of Freshwater Conservancy.

    ·         052112 – MBlack – SMPdraft

    ·         #271 The overall concern I have is that you are in fact taking future uses away from private land holders without clearly acknowledging doing so.

    ·         051712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #270 problem SELLING AND BUYING DOE SMP NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

    ·         051612 – PHewett – PPS

    ·         #269 SMP Public Forum participation

    ·         051512 – ASoule – SMPdraft

    ·         #268 SMP references to sea level rise

    ·         051212 – PHewett – G

    ·         #267 FORKS SMP PUBLIC FORUM problems  MAY 10, 2012

    ·         051212 – KNorman – SED

    ·         #266 I hope that you will reconsider the classification of these lots based on this information as to do otherwise would be a severe hardship on the owners of the lots and would constitute a “taking” of the land.

    ·         051112 – FutureWise-PPS – SMPdraft

    ·         #265 Clallam County v. Futurewise 7 years + lawsuit Carlsborg. The current SMP updates are an opportunity to significantly improve protection for the straits and the county’s other shorelines.

    ·         050812 – EBowen – G20

    ·         #264  S. Gray to Ed Bowen long overdue Final Draft WRIA 20 Preliminary SMP Elements Report

    ·         050812 – WFlint – SED

    ·         #263  redesignateThe Lower Lyre River should be designated as Freshwater Residential (FRSD), and not Freshwater Conservancy (FC) as it is now proposed.

    ·         050812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #262 SCIENTIFIC PAPERS AND THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW DOE has consistently ignored questions asked on SMP comments, posted on the Clallam County SMP Update website, and at SMP Advisory meetings. I am requesting answers to the following questions to comply with the core principles of Due Process and the DOE SMP taking of private property in Clallam County.

    ·         050712 – USFWS – SMPdraft

    ·         #261  The Service strongly supports maintaining the feeder bluffs in their natural functioning condition.

    ·         050612 – PHewett – G

    ·         #260 If it is not recorded with the Clallam County Auditor’s Office it is not on the Property Title. What should be recorded with the Auditor’ s office for Public Record?

    ·         050512 – ESpees – G

    ·         #259 The premise of the SMA/SMP Undate ‘that there is and environmental crisis’ that requires a draconian governmental intervention is bogus.

    ·         050412 – LMuench – G

    ·         #258 I think you would best be served by showing shrubs as well as trees. Since the graphics are done, what about a red arrow pointing to the trees saying “may be limbed for views.” This is a major issue with shoreline land owners.

    ·         050412 – ESpees – G

    ·         #257 The negative ECONOMIC IMPACT of the DoE imposed SMA/SMP Update for 2012 will be staggering!!!

    ·         050412 – PHewett – G

    ·         #256 Clallam County DOE SMP update, written text, uses our safety and protection as an excuse to take, restrict and control the use/development of our private property.

    ·         050312 – JBettcher – G

    ·         #255 I appreciate the public benefit of a healthy ecosystem but oppose the taking of private property by prohibiting private landowners from applying the best engineering practices to resist natural whims.

    ·         050212 – PHewett – G

    ·         #254 REAL ESTATE LOW MARKET VALUE OF NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

    April:

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #253 Increased Ins.FEMA AND OTHER POLICY SPECIFIC INSURANCE COVERAGE

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #252 House Bill 2671  If a county appeals the (DOE) Department of Ecology’s final action on their local shoreline master program and  the appeal is given to the Growth Management Hearings Board?

    ·         042812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #251 No. 87053-5 lawsuit against GMA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

    ·         042612 – PHewett -G

    ·         #250 CLALLAM COUNTY- County NEGLECT OF WIRA 20 SMP PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS

    ·         042112 – Spees – G

    ·         #249 this insane outrageous governmental over reach under the thinly veiled cover of saving the environment. The problem now is not the environment.

    ·         042112 – PHewett – G

    ·         #248 PARTIAL DISCLOSURE OF negative SMP IMPACT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS

    ·         041812 – PHewett – G

    ·         #247 The statistics introduced 474 at the last SMP Advisory meeting, on how many private property owners, property and single family dwellings will become non-conforming by the SMP Draft marine 175′, 150′ plus 10′ setbacks, has not been posted on the SMP web site.

    ·         041712 – Port of PA – G

    ·         #246 Excessive buffers Table 4.1 the proposed draft buffer in row “a” should be modified from 100’ to 50’

    March:

    ·         032912 – PHewett – G

    ·         #245 THE MOST UNSCIENTIFIC PARTS OF THE DOE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP ARE, that even with DOE’S 1616 employees and a billion dollar budget.DOE doesn’t have a single analyst capable of compiling and reporting the most important documented/published scientific statistics provided by The Clallam County Inventory and Characteristic reports.

    ·         032612 – PHewett – G

    ·         #244 ESA Adolfson’s consultant’s failure to comply with WA State Law RCW 90.58.100 Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion.

    ·         032512 – PHewett – G20

    ·         #243 WIRA 20 Sol Duc River Reach 80 needs to be re-designated on proposed draft to 3.1.1.4 Freshwater Conservancy (FC)

    ·         032312 – RCrittenden – SMPdraft

    ·         #242 Thus, all regulation is evil by its nature and it is repressive. The best regulations are those that are the least that is necessary to accomplish their intended legitimate purpose. And “legitimate” is not to be broadly construed.

    ·         032212 – PHewett/RCrittenden – G

    ·         #241 Dr. Robert N. Crittenden SMP critical comments, testimony, tables and reviews

    ·         032112 – OEC – SMPdraft

    ·         #240  Change “should” to “shall” ,,,,culverts, and bridges shall be conducted using best practices….

    ·         031712 – PHewett – G

    ·         #239 Who controls PATENT LAND GRANTS ISSUED PRIOR TO STATEHOOD

    ·         031412 – MBarry – G

    ·         #238 These shorelines are critical for wildlife and natural ecological functions. I favor large setbacks. I favor development restrictions

    ·         030912 – PHewett – G/NNL

    ·         #237 Mitigation is for the rich Building Permit 2012-00014 issued to owners, David and Maria Tebow, Battle Creek MI. Two story 4 bedroom house 4770 sq feet, garage 927 sq feet, covered deck 173 sq feet with 19 plumbing drains (Number of Bathrooms?) Setbacks 60/25/25 Project value $486,781.18. the written guarantee bythe Clallam County DCD of no net loss to ecological functions (documented on building permit)

    ·         030512 – ESpees – SMPdraft

    ·         #236 There is no way that these voluminous shoreline land use policies can be understood. It takes no imagination to understand that this process is not ‘due process’ in the taking of beneficial use of our Private Property

    ·         030412 – PHewett – SMPdraft

    ·         #235 DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages) has gone missing, creating law by rule

    ·         030312 – KAhlburg – SMPdraft

    ·         #234 The last sentence runs directly counter to this assurance and needs to be modified or deleted. It otherwise will constitute yet another unfunded mandate burdening the County and “other entities” (which ones?).

    ·         030212 – PHewett – NNL/SMPdraft

    ·         #233 Lake Sutherland is a perfect example of Ecology’s NO NET LOSS.

    ·         With a 35 foot setback since 1976 there is no net loss of ecological function in Lake Sutherland.

    ·         030112 – MarineResourcesCouncil – SMPdraft

    ·         #232 It may also be possible that under certain development conditions, if done to minimize impervious surface and maximize water infiltration, could enhance the function of the buffer and perhaps allow for a narrower buffer.

    February:

    ·         022812 – FutureWise – SMPdraft

    ·         #231 The first half establishes the expected character of shoreline buffers, and is well stated. But the second half goes on to state that only 80% of the buffer vegetation is protected, and that 20% can be used for lawns and other use areas.

    ·         022812 – PHewett – NNL

    ·         #230 NO NET LOSS MENTIONED In law RCW 36.70A.480 but has never been defined (4) Shoreline master programs shall provide a level of protection to critical areas located within shorelines of the state that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources as defined by department of ecology guidelines adopted pursuant to RCW 90.58.060.

    ·         022812 – PHewett – NNL

    ·         #229 The policies, goals, and provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW and applicable guidelines shall be the sole basis for determining compliance of a shoreline master program

    ·         022712 – WDOE- SMP Statue

    ·         #228 Gordon White letter dated Feb. 27,2012 page 4, disclaimer of creating enforceable state LAW by rule on Page 88 of the WA State Public Trust Doctrine.

    ·         022412 – QuileuteNation – SMPdraft

    ·         #227 TRIBAL comment

    January:

    ·         010312 – LowerElwhaKlalllamTribe – SED

    ·         #226 TRIBAL comment

     

     

    WHATEVER? Error! Filename not specified.

    SMP Comments 2011:

    December:

    ·         120811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #225 PROBLE  WETLANDS NOT ON SMP MAPS Attachments: Lowell OREGON Local Wetland Inventory Report DRAFT.docx

    ·         120811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #224 Perkins and Coie  Your Request on Tacoma SMP Attachments: 12-13-10 letter to Gary Brackett.pdf; SMA and Public Access.pdf legal paper against SMP taking

    ·         120711 –OlympicEnvironmentalCouncil (OEC) – G

    ·         #223 Sea level  rise and climate change

    ·         120611 – WDOE- ICR20

    ·         #222  Draft WRIA 20 Inventory and Characterization

    November:

    ·         113011 – ESpees – G

    ·         #221 In the WRIA Process and the SMA/SMP Update Process the concept of State regulation of land use based on Feeder Bluffs and Littoral Drift Cells is a False Construct.

    ·         112511 – ESpees – G

    ·         #220 The DoE’s current cram-down of NNL and increased set-backs based on precautionary principle and ‘new understandings of science’ (non-science/non-sense/pseudo-science) should be rejected.

    ·         112411 – ESpees – G

    ·         #219 Impact on all stakeholders It’s content is extremely pertinent to the work we are doing in Clallam County’s SMA/SMP Update.

    ·         111611 – MPfaff-Pierce – SED

    ·         #218 Specifically, I am requesting that you reclassify the entire Whiskey Creek Beach Resort area as Modified Lowland. Right now you are proposing that a short area west of the creek be designated as Modified Lowland and the rest as High Bank.

    ·         111111 – JPetersen – SED

    ·         #217 Many activities would be prohibited without really looking at the specifics.

    ·         111011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #216 This is on the DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages)”Finally, SMP’S, unlike other comprehensive plans, are adopted as WAC’S and become part of the state’s Shoreline Master Program. As such, all local SMP rules, regulations, designations and guidelines BECOME STATE LAW AND ARE ENFORCEABLE. in this manner, protection of public trust resources and uses becomes binding.”

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #215 SMP FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW not the WAC’S

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #214 Court: Washington Supreme Court Docket: 84675-8 Opinion Date: August 18, 2011 Judge: Johnson Areas of Law: Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use Applicable Law and Analysis. In affirming the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court explained that even though there is significant local government involvement in the creation of SMPs, the process is done in the shadow of the Department of Ecology’s (DOE) control.

    ·         110711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #213 the Shoreline Management Act dictates that the Department of Ecology retains control over the final contents and approval of SMPs. Therefore, SMP regulations are the product of state action and are not subject to RCW 82.02.020.”

    ·         110611 – PHewett – G

    ·         #212 EXCLUDED SMP DOE WAC’S DO NOT BECOME LAW

    ·         110511 – ESpees – NNL

    ·         #211 In keeping with regard to no net loss was unclear and without any foundation.

    ·         110511 – ESpees – G

    ·         #210 The law has recently been perverted by State Agencies to usurp private property rights, an uncompensated State taking by regulation.

    ·         110511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #209 There is no WA State law requiring any taking of private property for public access on the Clallam County SMP Update.

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #208 WHO CAN STOP DOE WAC’S FROM BECOMING STATE LAWS?

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #207 Victory for PLF Whatcom County’s shoreline management rules conflict with state law, which mandates that counties “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.” RCW 90.58.100.

    ·         110411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #206 BY Law there is NO mention of the words “imminent or danger or soft armoring” IF THIS WORDING IS USED ON THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT IT CONTRADICTS WA STATE LAW RCW 90.58.100 Protection of single family residences IT WILL BECOME CLALLAM COUNTY LAW.

    ·         110311 – WDFW – ICR

    ·         #205 A useful tool may be to describe, in general, the range of possible existing conditions within any portion of the shoreline.

    ·

    October:

    ·         103111 – WDOE – ICR

    ·         #204  Not a copy format

    ·         103111 – JLarson – ICR

    ·         #203 I made at last SMP-WG meeting be incorporated into record

    ·         102011 – PHewett – SED

    ·         # 202 Who’s toes will you be stepping on by using this? Will you be able to notify the private property owners that are inadvertently compromised? Are there any single family residences, in any areas, where you have not specifically provided comment on protection by Law?

    ·         102011 – PHewett – SED

    ·         #201 Is this another WAC overstepping it’s authority and the LAW?

    ·         101911 – PHewett – NNL

    ·         #200 The concept of no net loss in this State originated with earlier efforts to protect wetlands. In 1989, Governor Booth Gardner signed an Executive Order establishing a statewide goal regarding wetlands protection.

    ·         101811 – JEstes – G

    ·         #199 There are 3,289 shoreline property owners in Clallam County about to be subject to further regulation and restriction on the use of their land.

    ·         101711 – PHewett – G

    ·          #198 Unconstitutional Conditions of  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.

    ·         101711 – WSP – ICR20

    ·         #197 Any additional comments on the two Clallam County SMP Inventory and Characterizations Reports are due by October 31, 2011

    ·         101111 – PHewett – G

    ·         #196 WAC’S ARE NOT LAW’S? Guidelines Are Not Law’s? Rules Are Not Law’s?

    ·         100811 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #195 WAC 365-195-905 Criteria for determining which information is the best available science

    ·         100611 – PHewett – G

    ·         #194 REMOTE VIEWING AND SPACIAL DATA I did not find a State- of- the art- GSI and remote sensing facility for WA State?

    No b comment for #193?

    ·         100411 – PHewett – G/ICR

    ·         #192 Please bring the SMP Public Comments up to date.

    ·         100311 – JTatom – G

    ·         #191 As a property owner in Clallam County, I cannot imagine that you, as servants of the county, would even consider placing additional restrictions on residents who live near shorelines (marine, rivers, streams and lakes). Already we find ourselves so restricted that we are unable to use large portions

    ·         of our “privately” owned property.

    ·         100111 – PHewett – G

    ·         #190 Is it the intent, of two Elected County Commissioners, that total control of all private property in Clallam County, be given to the Federal Government and the WA State DOE, one way or the other?

    September:

    ·         092611 – PHewett – G/ICR

    ·         #189 Taking of Private Property for Public Access I insist that ESA Adolfson give us the total land acreage of private property that is affected by the SMP Update subject to NO NET LOSS and taking for Public Access.

    ·         092511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #188 private property owners pay for Noxious Weed Control ‐ LMD#2 Lake Sutherland

    There is no #187  public comment?

    ·         092211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #186 SHORELINE RESIDENTS SWAMPED BY REGULATIONS

    ·         092211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #185 I tried to stress the fact that it is not lack of public land, it is the lack of public access to that publically owned land,that is the problem.

    ·         092211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #184 CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTIC REPORT Based on the “Best Available Science?”

    ·         092211 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – ICR

    ·         #183 Tribal comment

    ·         091311 – LowerElwhaKlallamTribe – ICR

    ·         #182 Tribal comment

    ·         091011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #181 CLALLAM COUNTY SECTION 35.01.150 Real property assessments. PROTECTION FOR LOSS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY VALUE?  The restrictions imposed by the Shoreline Master Program shall be considered by the County Assessor in establishing the fair market value of the property.

    ·         091011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #180 PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT ON SMP Public Forum July 14, 2011 every public comment and question asked.

    ·         090411 – JLewis – CR/ICR

    ·         #179 Public access across our property through our wetlands and over our berm to our private beach would be of great concern to us. Here are some questions and concerns we’d like addressed and you consider amending the provisions for providing public shoreline access:

    ·         090311 – ESpees – G

    ·         #178 The Drift Cells, Littoral Drift, and

    ·         Feeder Bluffs Construct are so much BS/Smoke and Mirrors.

    ·         090311 – ESpees – G

    ·         #177 The Shoreline Master Program Update is rigged. NNL & larger setbacks do not represent the ‘will of the people’. It does not protect the rights of the Citizens.

    ·         090211 – ESpees – G

    ·         #176 I gave my opinion about ‘locking up’ shorelines property based on salmon and endangered species as a pretext

    August:

    ·         083111 – WDNR – ICR

    ·         #175 THREAT? Incidentally, many of the docks and other development may

    ·         encroach onto State owned aquatic lands without proper DNR authorization.

    ·         083111 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR

    ·         #174 There is obviously no “ground truthing” of the information in this report.

    ·         083111 – JLWisecup – G

    ·         #173 It lists it as a slide area although for the past 32 years we have had no indication of any land movement or building shift.

    ·         083111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #172 It is more loony insanity being foisted on the Citizens of the State of Washington by a Government and their agents that are out of control.

    ·         083111 – ESpees -G

    ·         171 The SMA/SMP and the WRIA processes are a means of locking up, transferring ownership to the State, and regulating the use of these areas/preventing private economic and other beneficial use of these prime areas.

    ·         082811 – PHewett – G

    ·         #170 SILT DAMAGE FROM ELWHA TO DUNGENESS SPIT?

    ·         082511 – ElwhaMorseMgmtTeam – ICRMaps

    ·         #169  Chris Byrnes commented on the yellow dots off shore (indicating “no appreciable drift”), argued that if it was so small, there wouldn’t be drifting anyway.

    ·         082511 – CoastalWatershedInstitute – ICR

    ·         #168 The characterization needs to be revised to include existing CLALLAM specific information and appropriate relevant recommendations that are in this existing information.

    ·         082511 – DAbbott – G

    ·         #167 I would like to see every effort made to ensure the constitutional rights of private property ownership made by those who have influence in our lawmaking process. These rights have been encroached upon over the years and there is a renewed concern today by many private citizens.

    ·         082411 – PHewett – G

    ·         #166 WA State SMP is requiring Public access on private property at the expense of the property owner.

    There is no comment#164

    There is no comment #163

    ·         081011 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR

    ·         #162 I urge you to look at the reach/s or resource issues within all reaches for accuracy, omissions, and errors.

    ·         There is no comment #161

    ·

    ·         081011 – WSP – ICR

    ·         #160 not able to copy

    ·          

    ·         There is no comment #159

    ·          

    ·         There is no comment #158

    ·          

    ·         080511 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #157 A huge treat to Private Property owners.Wetlands are not included on SMP Update maps showing the areas that are a threat and risk of development.

    ·

    ·         There is no comment #156

    ·

    ·         There is no comment #155

    ·

    ·         080111 – FutureWise – ICR

    ·         #154 The Sierra Club

    July:

    ·         072611 – WASeaGrant – ICR

    ·         #153 Coastal Hazards Specialist

    There is not comment #152

    ·         072211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #151 Fact or Fiction, It is illegal to collect water in a rain barrel?

    ·         The State owns all rainwater?

    ·         072011 – CCPlCom – ICR

    ·         #150 The July Forum attendance was low and those that attended appeared to be struggling with the information presented and the questions to ask.

    There is no comment #149

    ·         072011 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #148 Marine and Fresh water reach’s impaired by water temperature for fish recovery

    ·         072011 – PHewett – G

    ·         #147 Freshwater reaches impaired by water temperature (32) Marine reaches impaired by water temperature (6) Contaminated Marine Reaches (5)

    ·         Contaminated Freshwater Reaches (2) plus several

    ·         072011 – ESpees – G

    ·         #146 What the hell does NNL (No Net Loss of ecological function) mean? What is the plan for the amount of setbacks? What is the basis of this vague indefinable policy?

    ·         072011 – PHewett – ICR20

    ·         #145 On page 5-14 HOKO_RV_05 is not listed. Shore line length 3.8 miles and Reach area 246.40 acres 100% timber

    ·         071711 – PHewett – G

    ·         #144 TOP TEN PUBLIC SMP UPDATE CONCERNS

    ·         071711 – ESpees – G

    ·         #143 Tribes not affected by Shoreline Mgmt. Plan Updates

    ·         071611 – ESpees – G

    ·         #142 the DoE/EPA attempt to strip the Citizens of their private property rights.

    ·         071611 – ESpees – G

    ·         #141 It uses Drift Cells and Littoral Drift as excuses to take away private use and protections of private property. This has to do with ‘feeder bluffs’

    ·         071211 – TSimpson – ICR

    ·         #140 Page 6-12 Needs Correction :Lines 19-22

    ·         071211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #139 COLD ENOUGH? For Salmon Recovery?

    ·         Based on their own reports and data, the amount of tree canopy, logging, development and public access are NOT factors in the impaired water temperature? Perhaps 50 years ago the water WAS cold enough?

    ·         071211 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #138 Why is Green Crow the only contaminator mentioned by name? We should be given the exact location of every specific contaminated site and the full identity of EVERY contaminator.

    ·         071111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #137 Conspicuously absent from the report of the first meeting is an accounting of the economical impact.

    ·         070811 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #136 If more public access is needed, it is not the responsibility of Private Property Owner’s to provide it.

    ·         070811 – PHewett – ICR

    ·         #135 The Clallam County SMP update requires private property owners to give public access to their privately owned marine shorelines, prior to permitting development.

    ·

    ·         No comment # 134

    ·         No comment #133

    ·         No Comment #132

     

     

    .

    WHATEVER? Error! Filename not specified.

     

    SMP Comments 2011 cont.

    June:

    ·         062811 – JLMcClanahan – G20

    ·          #131 She was very concerned about any potential regulatory changes that would result in the loss of options for using their two parcels in the future.

    ·         062411 – RTMcAvoy – G20

    ·         #130 they are against any such change for the reasons stated herein.

    ·         062411 – DMansfield – G20

    ·         #129 Adamant about no further restrictions on property

    ·         062411 – PCWidden – G20

    ·         #128 Concerns about changing the current SMP status from Rural to Conservancy.

    No comment #127

    ·         062011 – JEstes – G

    ·         #126  detail on how members of the public and affected property owners are being notified

    No Comment # 125

    ·         060611 – WDOE – CR

    ·         #124 local DOE

    ·         060611 – PortofPA – CR

    ·         #123 LIMIT NOT PROHIBIT

    ·         060411 – ESpees – CR

    ·         #122 The salmonid stocks in Clallam County are not limited by freshwater habitat

    ·         060311 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – CR

    ·         #121 Tribal Comment

    ·         060311 – HBell – CR

    ·         #120 This is not required by the RCW nor the WAC. WAC 173-26-241

    ·         060311 – WSP – CR

    ·         #119 State Park comment

    ·         060311 – WDOE – CR

    ·         #118 Local DOE

    ·         060311 – ESpees – CR

    ·         #117 By Dr. Robert N. Crittenden

    ·         060211 – RCrittenden – CR

    ·         #116 the low abundance of these stocks is also being used, to perpetrate the deception that it is caused by habitat loss.

    ·         060211 – JEstes – CR

    ·         #115 the CR is one of several steps the County will take to consider if any existing “policies or regulations need to change.” There must be demonstrated

    ·         need for any changes and all affected landowners should be invited to consider any changes.

    ·         060211 – SForde – G

    ·         #114 Which one of my individual rights are you protecting with the Shoreline Master Plan and/or any updates to it? The answer: Nonein fact, you are violating them.

    ·         060211 – QuileuteNation – CR

    ·         #113 Tribal comment

    ·         060211 – CRogers – CR

    ·         #112 -Page 4 typo error

    ·         060211  –  QuileuteNation – CR

    ·         #111 Tribal comment

    ·         060111 – AStevenson – CR

    ·         #110 a marked up PDF of the Consistency Review

    ·         060111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #109 SMP Update – SMP Update Rigged Process

    No comment #108

    ·         060111 – PHewett – G #107

    ·         TOTALITARIAN: by definition(concerned with) arrogating (to the state and the ruling party) all rights and liberty of every choice, including those normally belonging to individuals, etc.

    ·         060111 – MTWalker – G

    ·         #106 The SMP should be rejected in all it’s forms. It erodes our rights and freedoms, does not comply with and is in fact contrary to the Constitution, is poorly written, poorly organized, vague, and its objectives are ambiguous/obscure.

    ·         060111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #105 Tribes Not Affected

    May:

    ·         053111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #104 The SMP erodes our rights and freedoms

    ·         053111 – ESpees – G

    ·         #103 The NNL Policy, larger setbacks and buffers, and new forced public access to private property will further erode our freedoms.

    ·         053111 – MGentry – G

    ·         #102 Green Point, group. 35 were invited and 17 showed up plus Dave Hannah was there to answer questions on bluff stability. Of the 17 only one was aware of SMP or said they had been contacted about forums.

    ·         053111 – PHewett – G / CR

    ·         #101 Pacific Legal Foundation If government blocks access to your land, it has committed a taking Dunlap v. City of Nooksack

    ·         052911 – ESpees – G

    ·         #100 Adopting the NNL Policy and enlargement of current buffers is making bad policy worse.

    ·         052911 – PHewett – G

    ·         #99 SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE Many of the problems that were the REASON that the public voted for the original Shore Line Management Act have already been corrected.

    ·         052811 – ESpees – G

    ·         #98 The DoE, an unelected State agency, is making radical policy based on the new State religion of earth worship.

    ·         052811 – RHale – G

    ·         #97 SMP’S are nothing more than a new version of a death panel and a method for which to take property rights of state Registered/ Deeded and “taxed” owners.

    ·         052711 – ESpees – G

    #96 Article 1. Section 1. Of the Washington State Constitution

    Political Power: All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

    052711 – PHewett – G

    #95 WA State DOE Budget is A THOUSAND MILLION IS A BILLION written AS $1,034.0 Million (the Doe can’t even write it as a BILLION)

    ·         052611 – MGentry – G

    ·         #94 I reported to Steve and Sheila only one of the group of 20 we met with had received notices like this. Can you determine why?

    No comment #93

    ·         052111 – PHewett – G

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

    No comment #91

    ·         051811 – JPetersen – CR

    ·         #90 One of the items that should be addressed in the new shoreline program is the relative inaccuracy of the Critical Areas maps in regards to Meander Hazard Zones.

    ·         051811 – NOTAC – CR

    ·         #89 MANY comments on the Consistency Review

    No comment #88

    No comment #87

    No comment #86

    No comment #85

    No comment #84

    No comment #83

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

    ·         #82 WA The Supreme Court has granted review in several additional cases against the SMP this month.Citizens for Rational Shoreline Planning, et al. v. Whatcom County, et al., No. 84675-8.

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

    ·         #81 United States Supreme Court RULES An environmental restriction on property development that serves no environmental purpose is unjustifiable.

    ·         051311 – PHewett – G

    ·         #80 Pacific Legal Foundation If government blocks access to your land, it has committed a taking Dunlap v. City of Nooksack

    No comment #79

    No comment #78

    ·         051011 – TSummer – G

    ·         #77 No privacy on private beach I have met some extremely rude people who confront me and won’t leave my backyard because they believe the beach SHOULD BE public.

    ·         050611 – PHewett – G

    ·         #76 Clallam County SMP has/will taken the value of private property located in critical areas, setbacks, buffer zones and shorelines and is legally controlling and regulating the removal of all vegetation on all private property located in critical areas, setbacks, buffer zones.

    ·         050611 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #75 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% or less of Clallam County is PRIVATE PROPERTY 3.7% other

    No comment #74

    No comment #73

    ·         050511 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #72 LAKE SUTHERLAND RCW 90.24.010 Petition to regulate flow

    ·         050511 – PHewett – CR

    ·         #71 Oregon Voters May Require Compensation for Damage to Land Value Due to Regulations

    ·         050511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #70 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. “Reading out loud” by Pearl Hewett of WAC 173-26-191 illegal or unconstitutional.

    ·

    April:

    ·         042611 – ESpees – G

    ·         #69 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?

    ·         042311 – MBlack – G

    ·         #68 This is crazy-making and counterproductive. Please pick one that can be defined.

    ·         042011 – KAhlburg – G

    ·         #67 Public comments

    ·         041811 – QuileuteNation – G

    ·         #66 Tribal Comment

    ·         041411 – RColby – G

    No comment #65

    No comment #64

    No comment #63

    ·         #62 We are still suffering under the Good Ole Boys mentality out here because in Clallam bay one property owner is using his lands for staging a scrap metal yard right next to Charlie creek.

    ·         041411 – TSimpson – G

    ·         #61  To mandate setbacks is arbitrary. Each site is different.

    ·         041211 – BBrennan – G

    ·         #60  We are in the process of evaluating the existing well and have had utilities reconnected to the property. Over the next few years we hope to see these projects come to fruition, but are concerned that shoreline setback changes could impede our progress.

    ·         041111 – NN – G

    ·         #59 hand written

    ·         041111 – MGentry – G

    ·         #58 hand written

    ·         041111 – NN – G

    ·         #57 Hand written

    ·         041111 – RMorris – G

    ·         #56 same as #57 hand written

    ·         041111 – NMessmer – G

    ·         #55, 56 and 57 are identical

    ·         041011 – RMorris – G

    ·         #54 I would really like to see a ban on the use of yard-related herbicides and pesticides within buffer zones near aquatic areas.

    No comment #53

    No comment #52

    ·         04 –11- RMorris – G

    ·         #51 #55, 56 and 57 are identical

    ·

    March:

    ·         031511- PHewett – G

    ·         #50  Summary  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.

    ·         031511 – RMorris – G

    ·         #49 My first look at the report is that is looks good.

    ·         031511 – RMorris – G

    ·         #48 Is the Clallam County MRC research and data bases being used in this work?

    No comment #47

    ·         031411 – MGentry – G

    ·         #46 I would be really interested in knowing what portion of the population actually has even an elementary understanding of what’s going on with this planning process, the decisions being made and how those will affect the common citizen.

    ·         031111- JWare – G

    ·         #45 Thank you for providing the opportunity to participate and learn more about the Clallam County Shoreline Master Plan.

    No comment #44

    ·         030211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #43 Indian Tribes Role in Local Watershed Planning (ESHB 2514)

    ·         030211 – PHewett – G

    ·         #42 INVITATION TO ALL PERSONS RCW 90.58.130

    No comment #41

    February:

    ·         021711 – MLangley – G

    ·         #40 PRO SMP but Too often shoreline owners bear the burden of inconsiderate visitors.

    ·         021511 – PHewett – G

    ·         #39  My son listened to me complain for days about the SMP and illegal trespass by DFW on our land, then he gave me some invaluable advise. If you have a complaint? CLIMB THE LADDER!

    ·         020211 – RBrown – G

    ·         #38 Sorry I couldn’t make it to the latest SMP focus group

    January:

    ·         012611 – MBoutelle – G

    ·         #36 hand written erosion problem

    No comment #35

    No comment #34

    No comment #33

    No comment #32

    ·         012111 – CAbrass – G

    ·         #31 One of our concerns is the lack of guidelines and drainage requirements for new housing development above the level of waterfront property.

    ·         011811 – DJones – G

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

    2010:

    The Clallam County Board of Commissioner’s expects to adopt a final SMP-Update Public Participation Strategy extended to March 16, 2010 @ 10 a.m. at the Board of Clallam County Commissioners Regular Meeting, 223 East 4th Street, Room 160, Port Angeles, Washington.

    No comment #29

    No comment #28

    No comment #27

    No comment #26

    ·         110810 – WDNR – G

    ·         #25 Please include myself and Hugo Flores as contacts for the WA DNR and

    ·         include us in any mailings regarding your future planning efforts.

    No comment #24

    ·         080510 – PSP – G

    ·         #23 PSP

    No comment #22

    No comment #21

    No comment #20

    No comment #19

    No comment #18

    No comment #17

    ·         031010 – WDOE – PPS

    ·         #16  SMP Update Public Participation Strategy

    ·         030910 – WDOE – PPS

    ·         #15 We talked about how to include the transient or tourist public in the outreach strategy

     

    No comment #14

    No comment #13

     

    ·         030810 – LMuench – PPS

    ·         #12 SMP Update Public Participation Strategy

    ·         030410 – QuileuteNation – PPS

    ·         #11 Tribal comment, I am thinking the person who drafted it just

    ·         looked at state requirements and did not go beyond that

    No comment #10

    No comment #9

    No comment #8

    No comment #7

    No comment #6

    No comment #5

    ·         022410 – FutureWise – PPS

    ·         #4 The very nature of this product is about public participation. Some

    ·         description of it is needed, including how it is intended to be used in the SMP.

    No comment #3

    ·         020910 – JMarrs – PPS

    ·         #2 I am pleased with the emphasis I see on making the process open and transparent.

    2009: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    ·         120509 – DemComm – G  #1  CLALLAM COUNTY DEMOCRATIC CENTRAL COMMITTEE

    Resolution regarding County Shoreline Management Plan

     WHEREAS the nature of amendments to the plan as might be adopted by the Clallam County Board of Commissioners mayor may not adequately protect the quality of local waters from harmful development; and

    WHEREAS participation in the Shoreline Management Plan review process will be open to the public in a series of meetings over the next two years or more;

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

    ·         December 5, 2009

     REMEMBER… This is just 

    Part one: The history of us, the collective 3000? What happened to us?

    To be Continued….

    Behind My Back | SMP Public Comment # 160

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/11/smp-public-comment-160/

    SMP Public Comment # 160 Posted on February 11, 2015 1:01 pm by … … No Clallam County elected representatives attended this meeting. Thirty (30) people …

    ——————————————————————————

    Behind My Back | SMP and other Matrix Mumbo Jumbo

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/03/23/smp-and-other-matrix-mumbo-jumbo/

    (OF THE 617 WRITTEN SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS POSTED ON THE SMP WEBSITE?) … OR ORAL COMMENT INCLUDED IN THE “NEW SMP 160+ MATRIX”? … There is no accountability as to what Clallam County government agency or other …. UNDER AN EXPEDITED RULE- MAKING … full text on behindmyback.org.

    ———————————————————————-

    19 Unresolved SMP Issues AN SMP Public … – Clallam County

    www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/635_PHewett.pdf

    Jul 4, 2015 – On 19 unresolved SMP issues that went to the Planning … The 19 unresolved SMP issues on July 10, 2012 ….. Of …www.behindmyback.org.

    The bottom line…..

     REMEMBER… This is just 

    Part one: The history of us, the collective 3000?

    You the elected are responsible for what happens to all of us.


  • WA State Ecology is Back to WAC Us

    Chapter 173-03 WAC, PUBLIC RECORDS

    Incorporates changes made by Emergency Rule- WAC 173-03-9000E

    Why it matters?

    SIMPLY PUT…..

    Behind My Back | “Ecology Sucks”

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/04/15/ecology-sucks/

    APR 15, 2013 – “Ecology Sucks” And, the rest of the story. The local news … citizenreviewonline.org/ecologys-qa-session-in-sequim-about-… Jan 17, 2013 …

     How much will PUBLIC RECORDS cost us?

    ——————————————————–

    Behind My Back | WA State DOE Emergency Fee Rule?

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/07/24/wa-state-doe-emergency-fee-rule/

    JUL 24, 2017 – July 20, 2016 Public Records Emergency Rule WAC 173-03-9000E CALCULATION OF ACTUAL COSTS OF PRODUCING COPIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS DECLARED …

    WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY finds that it is in the general welfare and the public interest, and benefits requesters and the agency, to adopt the emergency rule in order to preserve AND UPDATE FEES in accordance with the legislatively adopted schedule.

    WITHOUT FURTHER ACTION, THIS WOULD CREATE A PERIOD OF MONTHS DURING WHICH NO STATEMENT OR RULE WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC REGARDING PRA (PUBLIC RECORDS ACT) COSTS

    OR THE METHODS OF CALCULATING THEM, CREATING CONFUSION AND UNCERTAINTY REGARDING ECOLOGY’S FEE STRUCTURE AND ITS (WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY’S) ABILITY TO CHARGE FEES.

    ———————————————————————–

    EINSTEIN SAID, “IF YOU CAN’T PUT IT SIMPLY, YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND IT VERY WELL”

    JAN 17, 2013  “IT’S A MONEY DEAL,” I said, adding, “ECOLOGY SUCKS”,  (which prompted a flurry of applause)

    SIMPLY PUT:  THE WA STATE  DEPT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) CHANGES TO PUBLIC RECORDS IS  A MONEY DEAL.

    JAN 20, 2013 “ECOLOGY SUCKS” WAS MY  PUBLISHED OPINION AND ON SEPT 22, 2017  I’M STICKING WITH IT!

    —————————————————————

    This is the 994th posting on behindmyback.org since Jan 29, 2013

    This posting is over 3000 words.

    —————————————————————————–

    Complete unedited text

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

    To: ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK@LISTSERV.WA.GOV

    Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 6:52 AM

    Subject: The following rulemaking proposal was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser: Chapter 173-03 WAC, Public Records The following rulemaking proposal was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser: September 15, 2017

    Chapter 173-03 WAC, Public Records

    For more information:

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/laws-rules/wac17303/1614ov.html

    ——————————————————————

    Chapter 173-03 WAC Public Records

    Incorporates changes made by Emergency Rule- WAC 173-03-9000E

    Overview

    Introduction

    The Department of Ecology is proposing amendments to Chapter 173-03 WAC Public Records. The purpose of this chapter is to implement the requirements of the Public Records Act including the process the agency uses for disclosing records.

    This update will modernize the rule to reflect current law, technology, and processes. On 7/20/17 we filed an emergency rule amendment to implement changes passed by the legislature during the 2017 legislative session.  This emergency rule will be in place until 11/17/2017.  The content of this emergency rule will be included in the permanent rulemaking we are conducting.

    Why it matters

    The rule has not been updated since 1998 and needs to reflect current law, technology, and processes. The rule also contains outdated information about Ecology programs and staff, which will be made current and will reflect changes made in the 2017 legislative session.

    Scope of rule development

    Ecology is proposing to amend Chapter 173-03 WAC. This update will modernize the rule to reflect current law, technology, and processes.

    Process of development

    Please refer to the Timeline and Public Involvement information to stay informed about the rulemaking.

    —————————————————————————

    To join or leave ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK click here:

    http://listserv.wa.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A0=ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK

    ——————————————————————-

    Chapter 173-03 WAC

    PUBLIC RECORDS

    Complete Chapter

    WAC Sections

    173-03-010

    What is the purpose of this chapter?

    173-03-020

    How are specific terms defined in this chapter?

    173-03-030

    How is the department of ecology organized?

    173-03-040

    How do I get access to the public records of the department of ecology?

    173-03-050

    What records are retained and how are they indexed?

    173-03-060

    How do I request a public record?

    173-03-070

    How much will it cost me to view a public record?

    173-03-080

    What happens when the department denies a public records request?

    173-03-090

    What do I do if I object to the department’s denial to review a public record?

    173-03-100

    How does the department protect public records?

     

    ————————————————————————————–

    No agency filings affecting this section since 2003?

    WAC 173-03-010

    What is the purpose of this chapter?

    The purpose of this chapter is to implement the requirements of RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340 relating to public records.

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-010, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 43.17.060 and 42.17.260. WSR 90-21-119 (Order 90-37), § 173-03-010, filed 10/23/90, effective 11/23/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-010, filed 1/17/78.]

    —————————————————————————

    No agency filings affecting this section since 2003

    WAC 173-03-020

    How are specific terms defined in this chapter?

    (1) The terms “person,” “public record,” and “writing” shall have the meanings as stated in RCW 42.17.020.

    (2) “Department” means the department of ecology.

    (3) “Director” means the director of the department.

    (4) “Public records officer” means the employee designated as such by the department.

    (5) “Designee” means the employee of the department designated by the director or the public records officer to serve as the public records coordinator at the headquarters offices or at each of the regional offices in the absence of the officer.

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-020, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 43.17.060 and 42.17.260. WSR 90-21-119 (Order 90-37), § 173-03-020, filed 10/23/90, effective 11/23/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-020, filed 1/17/78.]

    ———————————————————————————–

    No agency filings affecting this section since 2003

    WAC 173-03-030

    How is the department of ecology organized?

    (1) Headquarters office.

    (a) The headquarters office is located at 300 Desmond Drive, Lacey, Washington. The mailing address for the headquarters office is:

    Department of Ecology

    P.O. Box 47600

    Olympia, Washington 98504-7600

    The mailing address for the nuclear waste management program’s Hanford project is:

    Nuclear Waste Management

    1315 W. 4th Ave.

    Kennewick, WA 99336

    (b) The offices of the director, deputy director(s), program managers and other agency officials are located in the headquarters office.

    (c) The titles of the executive staff are as follows:

    Chief financial officer for financial services.

    Administrative services manager for administrative services.

    Director for intergovernmental relations.

    Director for employee services.

    Director for communications and education.

    Assistant administrator for spills prevention, preparedness and response.

    (2) The program offices located in the headquarters office are:

    (a) Air quality;

    (b) Water resources;

    (c) Water quality;

    (d) Toxics cleanup;

    (e) Nuclear waste;

    (f) Solid waste and financial assistance;

    (g) Hazardous waste and toxics reductions;

    (h) Environmental investigations and laboratory services; and

    (i) Shorelands and environmental assistance.

    (3) Regional offices and their geographical jurisdictions are as follows:

    (a) Northwest regional office (Whatcom, Skagit, Snohomish, San Juan, Island, King, and Kitsap counties):

    3190 – 160th Avenue S.E.

    Bellevue, WA 98008-5452

    (b) Southwest regional office (Pierce, Thurston, Mason, Clallam, Jefferson, Grays Harbor, Pacific, Lewis, Cowlitz, Wahkiakum, Clark, and Skamania counties):

    300 Desmond Drive

    Lacey, WA 98503

    Mailing address:

    P.O. Box 47775

    Olympia, Washington 98504-7775

    (c) Central regional office (Okanogan, Chelan, Douglas, Kittitas, Yakima, Benton, and Klickitat counties):

    15 West Yakima, Suite 200

    Yakima, WA 98902-3401

    (d) Eastern regional office (Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille, Grant, Lincoln, Spokane, Adams, Whitman, Franklin, Walla Walla, Columbia, Garfield, and Asotin counties):

    1. 4601 Monroe, Suite 100

    Spokane, Washington 99205-1295

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-030, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340 and 1992 c 139. WSR 92-20-116 (Order 92-37), § 173-03-030, filed 10/7/92, effective 11/7/92. Statutory Authority: RCW 43.17.060 and 42.17.260. WSR 90-21-119 (Order 90-37), § 173-03-030, filed 10/23/90, effective 11/23/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-030, filed 1/17/78.]

    ———————————————————————–

    WAC 173-03-040

    How do I get access to the public records of the department of ecology?

    (1) All public records of the department are available for public inspection and copying under these rules subject to subsections (2), (3), (4), and (5) of this section.

    (2) Availability of public records is subject to the exemptions and prohibitions against disclosure contained in RCW 42.17.310, 42.17.130, 42.17.255, 42.17.260, and 90.52.020. In addition, individuals may request, and ecology may grant, confidentiality of documents from disclosure under RCW 43.21A.160 and 70.105.170.

    (3) When a public record includes information which, if disclosed, would lead to an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy, and the department becomes aware of this fact, the department shall delete such information before making the record available.

    (4) Public records requested may not be readily available for immediate inspection. If the requested records are not readily available, the department shall notify the requester when and where those records will be available.

    (5) Public records of the department are kept by the department or state archives until scheduled for destruction by the records retention schedule in accordance with chapter 40.14 RCW. Public records subject to a request for disclosure when scheduled for destruction shall be retained by the department and may not be erased or destroyed until the request is resolved.

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-040, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340 and 1992 c 139. WSR 92-20-116 (Order 92-37), § 173-03-040, filed 10/7/92, effective 11/7/92. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-040, filed 1/17/78.]

    ——————————————————————

    WAC 173-03-050

    What records are retained and how are they indexed?

    The records retention schedule established by the division of state archives of the office of the secretary of state serves as an index for the identification and location of the following records:

    (1) All records issued before July 1, 1990, for which the department has maintained an index;

    (2) Final orders entered after June 30, 1990, that are issued in adjudicative proceedings as defined in RCW 34.05.010(1) and that contain an analysis or decision of substantial importance to the department in carrying out its duties;

    (3) Declaratory orders entered after June 30, 1990, that are issued pursuant to RCW 34.05.240 and that contain an analysis or decision of substantial importance to the department in carrying out its duties; and

    (4) Interpretive statements as defined in RCW 34.05.010(8) that were entered after June 30, 1990.

    The records retention schedule indexes records according to the originating program or section, and then the record series title. Each title is further identified by a statement of function or purpose, and the retention period. The records retention schedule is available to the public for inspection and copying. With the assistance of the public records officer or designee, any person can obtain access to public records of the department using the records retention schedule.

    A separate index of policy statements as defined in RCW 34.05.010(4) entered after June 30, 1990, shall be maintained by the department’s policy manual coordinator or designees.

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-050, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 43.17.060 and 42.17.260. WSR 90-21-119 (Order 90-37), § 173-03-050, filed 10/23/90, effective 11/23/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-050, filed 1/17/78.]

    ———————————————————————–

    No agency filings affecting this section since 2003

    WAC 173-03-060

    How do I request a public record?

    (1) All requests for inspection or copying made in person at a department office shall be made on a form substantially as follows:

    REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORDS

    Date of Request . . . .

    Time of Request . . . .

    Name . . . .

    Address . . . .

    . . . .

    Description of Records:

    . . . .

    . . . .

    . . . .

    I understand that if a list of individuals is provided me by the Department of Ecology, it will neither be used to promote the election of an official nor promote nor oppose a ballot proposition as prohibited by RCW 42.17.130 nor for commercial purposes nor give or provide access to material to others for commercial purposes as prohibited by RCW 42.17.260(9).

    I understand that I will be charged the amount necessary to reimburse the department’s cost for copying.

    . . . .

    Signature

    Number of pages to be copied

    . . . .

    Number of copies per page

    . . . .

    Charge per copy

    $

    . . . .

    Special copy work charge

    $

    . . . .

    Staff time charge

    $

    . . . .

    Total charge

    $

    . . . .

    (2) You may request records in person at a department of ecology office between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

    (3) If you make your request by mail, your request must contain the following information:

    (a) The name and address of the person making the request and the organization the person represents;

    (b) The time of day and calendar date on which the person wishes to inspect the public records;

    (c) A description of the public records requested;

    (d) A statement whether access to copying equipment is desired;

    (e) A phone number where the person can be reached in case the public records officer or designate needs to contact the person for further description of the material or any other reason.

    (f) A statement that the record will not be used for commercial purposes.

    (4) The department must receive all requests at least five business days before the requested date of inspection to allow the public records officer or designee to make certain the requested records are available and not exempt and, if necessary, to contact the person requesting inspection. The department will process all requests in a timely manner. However, large requests or requests for public records maintained offsite may require more than five business days to prepare. The department will respond to your request within five business days of receiving it, by either:

    (a) Providing the record;

    (b) Acknowledging that the department has received the request and providing a reasonable estimate of the time the department will require to respond to the request; or

    (c) Denying the public record request.

    Additional time required to respond to a request may be based upon the need to clarify the intent of the request, to locate and assemble the information requested, to notify third persons or agencies affected by the request, or to determine whether any of the information requested is exempt and that a denial should be made as to all or part of the request. In acknowledging receipt of a public record request that is unclear, the department may ask the requestor to clarify what information the requestor is seeking. If the requestor fails to clarify the request, the agency need not respond to it.

    (5) The department may in its discretion fill requests made by telephone or facsimile copy (fax).

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-060, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340 and 1992 c 139. WSR 92-20-116 (Order 92-37), § 173-03-060, filed 10/7/92, effective 11/7/92. Statutory Authority: RCW 43.17.060 and 42.17.260. WSR 90-21-119 (Order 90-37), § 173-03-060, filed 10/23/90, effective 11/23/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-060, filed 1/17/78.]

    ————————————————————————————–

    WAC 173-03-070

    How much will it cost me to view a public record?

    The department does not charge a fee for the inspection of public records. The department will charge an amount necessary to reimburse its costs for providing copies of records. This amount shall be reviewed from time to time by the department, and shall represent the costs of providing copies of public records and for use of the department’s copy equipment, including staff time spent copying records, preparing records for copying, and restoring files. This charge is the amount necessary to reimburse the department for its actual costs for copying and is payable at the time copies are furnished. The charge for special copy work of nonstandard public records shall reflect the total cost, including the staff time necessary to safeguard the integrity of these records.

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-070, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340 and 1992 c 139. WSR 92-20-116 (Order 92-37), § 173-03-070, filed 10/7/92, effective 11/7/92. Statutory Authority: RCW 43.17.060 and 42.17.260. WSR 90-21-119 (Order 90-37), § 173-03-070, filed 10/23/90, effective 11/23/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-070, filed 1/17/78.]

    ———————————————————————————-

    WAC 173-03-080

    What happens when the department denies a public records request?

    When the department refuses, in whole or part, a request for inspection of any public record, it must include a statement of the specific exemption authorizing the refusal and a brief explanation of how the exemption applies to the record withheld.

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-080, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-080, filed 1/17/78.]

    ———————————————————————————-

    WAC 173-03-090

    What do I do if I object to the department’s denial to review a public record?

    (1) Any person who objects to the refusal of a request for a public record may petition for prompt review of that decision by submitting a written request for review. The written request shall specifically refer to the written statement by the public records officer or designee which constituted or accompanied the refusal.

    (2) Immediately after receiving a written request for review of a decision denying a public record, the public records officer or other staff member denying the request shall refer it to the director or the director’s delegate. The director or delegate shall immediately consider the matter and either affirm or reverse the refusal. The final decision shall be sent to the objecting person within two business days following receipt of the petition for review.

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-090, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-090, filed 1/17/78.]

    ————————————————————————

    WAC 173-03-100

    How does the department protect public records?

    In order to adequately protect the public records of the department, you must comply with the following guidelines while inspecting public records:

    (1) You may not remove any public record from the department’s premises.

    (2) You must have a designated department employee present while you are inspecting a public record.

    (3) You may not mark or deface a public record in any manner during inspection.

    (4) You may not dismantle public records which are maintained in a file or jacket, or in chronological or other filing order, or those records which, if lost or destroyed, would constitute excessive interference with the department’s essential functions.

    (5) Access to file cabinets, shelves, vaults, or other storage areas is restricted to department personnel, unless other arrangements are made with the public records officer or designee.

    [Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250. WSR 98-16-052 (Order 98-12), § 173-03-100, filed 7/31/98, effective 8/31/98. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340 and 1992 c 139. WSR 92-20-116 (Order 92-37), § 173-03-100, filed 10/7/92, effective 11/7/92. Statutory Authority: RCW 43.17.060 and 42.17.260. WSR 90-21-119 (Order 90-37), § 173-03-100, filed 10/23/90, effective 11/23/90. Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.250 – 42.17.340. WSR 78-02-041 (Order DE 77-35), § 173-03-100, filed 1/17/78.]

    ———————————————————————-

    The bottom line…..

    THE WA STATE  DEPT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) CHANGES TO PUBLIC RECORDS IS  A MONEY DEAL.

    JAN 20, 2013 “ECOLOGY SUCKS” WAS MY  PUBLISHED OPINION AND ON SEPT 22, 2017  I’M STICKING WITH IT!


  • Sen. Cantwell Bipartisan Fix for Affordable?

    IF YOU DON’T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE 500 LB. GORILLA IN WA DC, OBAMACARE’S UNAFFORDABLE FEDERAL HEALTHCARE FIX  JUST EMAIL OUT THE FOLLOWING AND CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Office of Senator Maria Cantwell

    To: phew@wavecable.com

    Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 4:40 PM

    Subject: A BIPARTISAN FIX TO OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS

    FELLOW WASHINGTONIANS

    AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS IS HAPPENING ACROSS OUR COUNTRY

    ———————————————————————————–

     LET’S CALL SENATOR CANTWELL (D) AFFORDABLE FIX A 50% INCREASE IN THE LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT (LIHTC)

    LET’S CALL SENATOR CANTWELL (D) AFFORDABLE FIX ABOUT $15 BILLION ANNUALLY.

    ———————————————————————————–

    Senators Cantwell and Hatch Reintroduce Affordable Housing Credit …

    www.enterprisecommunity.org/…/2017/…/senators-cantwell-and-hatch-reintroduce-af…

    Mar 8, 2017 – and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) introduced the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act of 2017 (S. 548) , a …

    ——-

    RECENTLY Jul 18, 2016  THERE HAS BEEN A FLURRY OF LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS TO ADD YET MORE HOUSING SUBSIDIES TO THE HOUSING SECTOR, ALREADY ONE OF THE MOST HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED.

     Jul 18, 2016  How Much would It Cost?

    FOR EXAMPLE, S.2962 BY SENATOR CANTWELL WOULD INCREASE THE LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT (LIHTC) PROGRAM TO ABOUT $15 BILLION ANNUALLY (A 50% INCREASE)

     The legislation is very similar to the comprehensive version of the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act (S. 3237), introduced by Senators Cantwell (D) and Hatch  (R) in 2016

     ——————————————————————————-

    AND THE LATEST (S. 548)

    Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act of 2017 (S. 548) – GovTrack

    https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s548

    1. S. 548. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reform the low-income housing credit, and for other purposes. In GovTrack.us, a database of bills in …
    2. S.548: Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act of 2017

    About this Bill

    You can

    read the bill

    Sponsor

    Maria Cantwell, D-Wash.

    Total Cosponsors

    19 (10 Democrats, 1 Independent, 8 Republicans)

    Introduced

    March 7, 2017

    Latest Major Action

    March 7, 2017

    See it on

    GovTrack

    See it on

    C-SPAN

    Bill Progress

    • Bill introduced in the Senate
    • Bill passed in the Senate
    • Bill passed in the House
    • Bill signed into law

    Bill Summary

    Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act of 2017 This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code, with respect to the low-income housing credit, to rename the credit “the affordable housing credit” and make several modifications to the credit. The bill increases state allocations for the credit and modifies the cost-of-living adjustments. It also revises tenant eligibility requirements, with respect to: the average income test, income eligibility for rural projects, increased tenant income, student occupancy rules, and tenant voucher payments that are taken into account as rent. The bill revises various requirements to: establish a 4% minimum credit rate for certain projects, permit relocation costs to be taken into account as rehabilitation expenditures, repeal the qualified census tract population cap, require housing credit agencies to make certain determinations regarding community revitalization plans, prohibit local approval and contribution requirements, increase the credit for certain projects designated to serve extremely low-income households, increase the credit for certain bond-financed projects designated by state agencies, increase the population cap for difficult development areas, and eliminate the basis reduction for affordable housing properties that are allowed the credit and receive certain energy-related tax credits and deductions. The bill also modifies requirements regarding the reconstruction or replacement period after a casualty loss, rights related to building purchases, the prohibition on claiming acquisition credits for properties placed in service in the previous 10 years, foreclosures, and projects that assist Native Americans.

    (Source: Congressional Research Service)

    Bill Actions

    Date

    Description

    March 6, 2017

    Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance.

    Sources: Library of Congress, Clerk of the House of Representatives, Secretary of the Senate, Government Printing Office, Sunlight Fou

    —————————————————————————————-

     The bottom line on SENATOR MARIA CANTWELL(D)  EMAIL AUG 1, 2017

    I HOPE YOU WILL JOIN ME AS I CONTINUE FIGHTING TO EXPAND THE (2014 $6.7 BILLION) LIHTC  TO ABOUT $15 BILLION ANNUALLY (A 50% INCREASE) AND BUILD MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, FOR MORE AMERICANS.

     OF COURSE SHE LEFT OUT THE AFFORDABLE $15 BILLION DOLLAR ANNUAL COST.

    $15,000,000,000.00

    ——————————————————————————

    THE FULL TEXT OF SENATOR MARIA CANTWELLS AUG 1, 2017 EMAIL IS AT THE BOTTOM

    ——————————————————————————

    HISTORY DOCUMENTS

     Market-based solutions are the only way to get home prices and rents …

    www.aei.org/publication/market-solutions-only-way-get-housing-back-in-line/

    Jul 18, 2016 – For example, S.2962 by Senator Cantwell would increase the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program to about $15 of government subsidies charged to all tax payers,” (iii) subsidized housing “invariably costs …

     —————————————————————————————–

    Nov 7, 2013 – How Much DID (LIHTC)  Cost? $6.7 BILLION DOLLARS  

    The Tax Break-Down: The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit …

    www.crfb.org/blogs/tax-break-down-low-income-housing-tax-credit

    Nov 7, 2013 – How Much Does It Cost? According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT (LIHTC)  WILL COST $6.7 BILLION DOLLARS  IN FOREGONE REVENUE IN 2014

    ————————————————————————————

    HOW THINGS WORK (OR NOT)

    Under The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)

    the government allocates nonrefundable tax credits to state-run housing agencies

    who distribute them to housing developers

    that agree to make a portion of their units available to low-income renters.

    The housing developers who receive the tax credits

    then sell them to independent investors to help finance the actual development of the housing units.

    The investors are ultimately the ones who claim the tax credit

    rather than the low-income residents of the rental units or the developers.

     —————————————————————————

     

    Senator Hatch (R-UT)

     “One reason I support the LIHTC is that it… allows decisions on housing to be made within the communities where the housing is needed while involving the private sector.” – Senator Hatch (R-UT)

    ————————————————————————————

    15  BILLION REASONS I OPPOSE THE LIHTC,  I  STAND WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP ON CUTTING FUNDING FOR LOCAL PROJECTS THAT SHOULD BE FUNDED BY STATES AND LOCALITIES THAT BENEFIT FROM THEIR USE…..

    SEATTLE, AND MANY OTHER BIG (D) CITIES AND STATES HAVE SELF INFLICTED “LOCAL CRISIS FUNDING ISSUES”

    IF A CITY OR A STATE CREATES A LOCAL CRISIS  WITH POOR PLANNING, GREED OR STUPIDITY MOST CERTAINLY, FEDERAL FUNDING MUST BE CUT AND THE CITY AND STATE MUST FIND LOCALLY FUNDING FOR THE FINANCIAL CRISIS THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING.

    ————————————————————————————–

    Priorities Poll | Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator

    https://www.cantwell.com/action/2017-priorities-poll

    2017 Priorities Poll. … Will you take 30 seconds to take my 2017 Priorities Poll? First Name. Email Address … Access to affordable housingSeattle, WA 98111.

    —————————————————————————————-

    affordable housing | KNKX

    knkx.org/term/affordable-housing

    Leaders of the Rental Housing Association of Washington say the City … Officials who help low-income people get housing in Seattle say it’s not clear how … HOUSING ADVOCATES’ BIG PRIORITY IN 2017: Defending A $48 Fee … Cantwell Highlights Pierce County Affordable Housing Shortage, Pushes For Tax Credit Extension.

    ————————————————————————–

    SEATTLE, AND MANY OTHER BIG (D) CITIES AND STATES HAVE SELF INFLICTED “LOCAL CRISIS FUNDING ISSUES”

    PRESIDENT TRUMP IS CUTTING FEDERAL FUNDING FOR LOCAL PROJECTS THAT SHOULD BE FUNDED BY STATES AND LOCALITIES THAT BENEFIT FROM THEIR USE…..

    SHALL WE START WITH FEDERAL FUNDING FOR (D) SANCTUARY CITIES AND THOSE WHO BENEFIT FROM THEIR USE.

    SEATTLE WA HAS A LOCAL SELF INFLICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS,  AS DO MANY OTHER BIG (D) CITIES

    —————————————————————————–

    Aug 1, 2017 SENATOR CANTWELL (D)  email SAYS, IF WE DON’T TAKE (FEDERAL) ACTION NOW, AS MANY AS 15 MILLION AMERICANS WILL BE SPENDING HALF THEIR MONTHLY INCOME ON RENT BY 2025.

    ——————————————————————————–

    June 26, 2017 FREE THE OBAMACARE 15 MILLION AMERICANS, They’re not ‘losing’ insurance; they just won’t be forced to get policies they don’t want.

    —————————————————

    AND, REALLY, SENATOR CANTWELL (D) AUG 1, 2017  EMAIL SAID,  If we don’t take action now, to bolster the AFFORDABLE “HOUSING” CRISIS  program, IT’S LIKELY THAT ALMOST $1 BILLION IN INVESTMENTS WILL BE LOST IN THIS YEAR ALONE.

    ——————————————————————————–

    IN 2016 ALONE, OBAMACARE WILL COST AMERICAN TAXPAYERS A  TOTAL OF $110,000,000,000.00 $110 BILLION DOLLARS. IN JUST ONE YEAR, 2016  UNAFFORDABLE OBAMACARE WAS A  NATIONAL MEDICAL $110 BILLION DOLLARS FINANCIAL CRISIS.

    SO Aug 1, 2017 EMAIL, WA DC SENATOR CANTWELL (D) IN SEATTLE: WANTS A FEDERAL BIPARTISAN FIX TO OUR? THE AFFORDABLE “HOUSING” CRISIS?

    REALLY, SENATOR CANTWELL (D)  15 MILLION AMERICANS WILL BE SPENDING THEIR MONEY ON WHAT?

    REALLY, PRESIDENT TRUMP AND GOP, FREE THE OBAMACARE 15 MILLION AMERICANS THAT WILL BE SPENDING THEIR MONTHLY INCOME ON  UNAFFORDABLE HEALTH INSURANCE THAT THEY DON’T NEED AND DON’T WANT.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    SEATTLE HAS A  SELF INFLICTED LOCAL CRISIS FUNDING THE HOMELESS, AS DO MANY OTHER BIG (D) CITIES

    —————————————————————————————

    I STAND WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP CUTTING FUNDING FOR LOCAL PROJECTS THAT SHOULD BE FUNDED BY STATES AND LOCALITIES THAT BENEFIT FROM THEIR USE…..

    IN EXPLAINING THE CUT, THE PRESIDENT’S BUDGET THIS WEEK SAYS TRANSIT ISN’T A NATIONAL MISSION.

    “THE BUDGET PROPOSES REDUCED FUNDING FOR … LOCAL TRANSIT PROJECTS THAT SHOULD BE FUNDED BY STATES AND LOCALITIES THAT BENEFIT FROM THEIR USE,” IT SAYS.

    ———————————————————————————-

    BIPARTISAN SUPPORT?  LIKE OBAMACARE?  DODD-FRANK?

    BIPARTISAN AFFORDABLE SUPPORT?  FROM ELECTED DEMOCRATS AND BLUE HILLARY STATES?

    ———————————————————————————

    REALLY…

    Support Affordable Housing today! | Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator

    https://www.cantwell.com/action/support-affordable-housing-today

    Sign on to call on Congress to to encourage, support, and accelerate the construction of affordable housing.

    —————————————————————————

    AUG 2, 2017  REALLY,  SENATOR CANTWELL GO BACK TO WA DC

     GET YOUR DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES TOGETHER, SENATOR MURRAY AND REP. KILMER  AND  DO AN AFFORDABLE FIX ON OBAMACARE

    —————————————————

    JUNE 26, 2017 FREE THE OBAMACARE 15 MILLION  THE CBO DOESN’T BELIEVE THAT MILLIONS WILL “LOSE” THEIR INSURANCE IN 2018. INSTEAD, THE AGENCY THINKS THAT MILLIONS WILL HAPPILY CANCEL THEIR COVERAGE — EVEN THOSE WHO GET IT FOR FREE. THE REASON: THE SENATE BILL WOULD REPEAL THE OBAMACARE TAX PENALTY ON THE UNINSURED, KNOWN AS THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.

    ———————————————————————–

    Senate Health Care Bill Will Reduce Coverage by 15 Million. Good …

    www.nationalreview.com/article/448991/senate-health-care-bill-will-reduce-coverage-…

    Jun 26, 2017 – This week, the Senate will decide whether to end government … will lose medical coverage next year if the Senate GOP’s healthcare bill … 12.7 uninsured million people — more than twice as many … READ MORE: … Next Article ….. fewer preventable hospital deaths(2015) http://www.politifact.com/.
    —————————————————————
    —– Original Message —–

    From: Office of Senator Maria Cantwell

    To: phew@wavecable.com

    Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 4:40 PM

    Subject: A Bipartisan Fix to Our Affordable Housing Crisis

     

    Fellow Washingtonians,

    An affordable housing crisis is happening across our country.

    If we don’t take action now, as many as 15 million Americans will be spending half their monthly income on rent by 2025.

    That’s why I requested today’s hearing, to address the worsening affordable housing shortage gripping our nation, and discuss my Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act, that would expand the successful Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) – our most effective tool for addressing America’s affordable housing crisis.

    WATCH: Senate Finance Committee Hearing on the Affordable Housing Crisis

    Under my proposal, which is cosponsored by Finance Committee Chairman Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Ranking Member Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), and 16 others, the expanded LIHTC would help create or preserve approximately 1,300,000 affordable homes over a 10-year period – an increase of 400,000 more units than is possible under the current program.

    Senators from both parties spoke in support of the LIHTC program, presenting an opportunity for bipartisan action as tax reform negotiations begin.

    “One reason I support the LIHTC is that it… allows decisions on housing to be made within the communities where the housing is needed while involving the private sector.” – Senator Hatch (R-UT)

    “The LIHTC is a critical tool.” – Senator Brown (D-OH)

    “I’m a big supporter of Ms. Cantwell’s program… It has passed the test of time” – Senator Isakson (R-GA)

    “The LIHTC is the major tool available and strengthening that tool is the most important thing I believe we can do.” – Senator Cardin (D-MD)

    If we don’t take action now, to bolster the program, it’s likely that almost $1 billion in investments will be lost in this year alone.

    According to the National Association of Home Builders, annual LIHTC development supports approximately 95,700 jobs and $9.1 billion in wages and business income.

    “America’s housing affordability crisis affects millions of families in urban, suburban, and rural areas nationwide, and the federal government must do everything in its power to help communities address it—beginning with expanding the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. We commend Senator Cantwell and her colleagues for pursuing a bipartisan solution to this pressing issue and urge every member of Congress to reflect on today’s hearing and support the Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act of 2017.” – Anthony J. Alfieri, president, Affordable Housing Tax Credit Coalition.

    My bill would also allow the 58,000 homeless students in the U.S. to finally access the affordable housing units created with LIHTC, expanding development opportunities in rural and Native communities and providing flexibility and financial feasibility to developments so they can more deeply target their units to the neediest individuals, including the homeless.

    Over the past year, I’ve met with local communities and visited affordable housing developments in Seattle, Tacoma, Spokane, Vancouver, Walla Walla, Longview, Kent, Bremerton, Bellingham, Portland, New York City and Salt Lake City and they’ve all told me the same thing: we need more affordable housing.

    I HOPE YOU WILL JOIN ME AS I CONTINUE FIGHTING TO EXPAND THE LIHTC AND BUILD MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, FOR MORE AMERICANS.

    As always, you can contact me with your questions and concerns through my website. Follow me on Twitter and Facebook to stay updated on the issues. Let’s stay in touch!

    Sincerely,

    Maria

     

    Looking for assistance? Senator Cantwell’s office may be able to help.

    Click below to contact the office closest to you:

     

    Everett    Richland    Seattle    Spokane    Tacoma    Vancouver    Washington, D.C.

     

     

    Unsubscribe

    —————————————————————————–

    Priorities Poll | Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator

    https://www.cantwell.com/action/2017-priorities-poll

    2017 Priorities Poll. … WILL YOU TAKE 30 SECONDS TO TAKE MY 2017 PRIORITIES POLL? First Name. Email Address … Access to affordable housingSeattle, WA 98111.

    PRESIDENT TRUMP IS WORKING ON TAX REFORM – THE BUDGET
    As a Hardworking Taxpaying Voting American citizen, what are your priorities?

     


  • Putting Down the Distracted Drivers Law?

    FACT: WA STATE DISTRACTED DRIVERS, HOLDING ELECTRONIC DEVICES, KILL AND INJURE PEOPLE, THE PUNISHMENT AND PENALTIES, BY LAW, SHOULD  BE THE SAME AS DUI LAWS.

    DUI or DWI Punishments and Penalties | Nolo.com

    www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/dui-or-dwi-punishments-penalties-30321.html

    Jail Time. In all states, first-offense DUI or DWI is classified as a misdemeanor, and punishable by up to six months in jail. That jail time may be increased under certain circumstances. … MANY STATES ALSO REQUIRE MINIMUM JAIL SENTENCES OF AT LEAST SEVERAL DAYS ON A FIRST OFFENSE.

    MANY STATES also require minimum jail sentences of at least several days on a first offense. Subsequent offenses often result in jail sentences of several months to a year.

    For a DUI or DWI that’s been classified as a felony — either because the driver killed or injured someone or because it’s the driver’s third or fourth DUI — jail sentences of several years are not uncommon. Again, this depends on state law, the facts of the case, and the discretion of the judge at trial.

    FINES IN ADDITION TO JAIL SENTENCES, courts can and do impose high fines for DUI or DWI. These range from $500 to as much as $2,000.

    DRIVER’S LICENSE PROBLEMS A DUI or DWI offender stands a good chance of having his or her license suspended for a substantial period of time (either by court order or mandate of the state motor vehicles department). FOR EXAMPLE, MANY STATES suspend a first offender’s license for 90 days; a second offender’s license for one year; and a third offender’s license for three years.

    IN MANY STATES IF YOU COMMIT THE SAME CRIME , KILLING AND INJURING PEOPLE, YOU DO THE SAME  TIME

    —————————————————————————

    JULY 27, 2017

    HAS WA STATE NANNY GOVERNOR JAY INSLEE (D)  GONE TOO FAR WITH THE STRICTEST DRIVER  LAWS IN THE NATION?

    OR  HAVE HE AND WA STATE LEGISLATORS JUST WANDERED OFF INTO LAW LAW LAND?

    Nation’s Strictest Distracted Driver Law Bans Motorists From Even …

    www.newsweek.com/distracted-driver-law-washington-state-no-holding-phones-6413…

    3 days ago – Drivers in Washington state caught holding their phones, having a quick snack or applying makeup could face fines of up to $234 under a new …

    ———————————————————————–

    A “STEREOTYPICALLY LAUGHABLE EXAMPLE OF A LIBERAL NANNY STATE AT ITS WORST.  IN AN ATTEMPT TO REGULATE OR BAN DOZENS OF ITEMS AND BEHAVIORS FROM BIG GULPS TO CIGARETTES….

     WHILE DRIVING.

    —————————————————————————

    Nearly 30,000 sign petition against Washington’s new distracted …

    q13fox.com/2017/…/petition-started-against-washingtons-new-distracted-driving-law/

    22 hours ago – TACOMA — At least 28000 people have decided that a Washington state law against distracted driving takes enforcement too far. The News …

    INDEED, MICROMANAGER NANNY GOV. INSLEE (D) AND HIS WA STATE LEGISLATORS HAVE GONE TOO FAR. period

    ———————————————————————————

    California: The Ultimate Nanny State – The Federalist

    thefederalist.com/2016/05/05/california-is-an-authoritarian-hellhole/

    MAY 5, 2016 – In California a 15-year-old girl can abort a viable baby without telling her parents, but a 20-year-old can’t buy a pack of cigarettes.

    ——————————————————————————-

    CALIFORNIA NEEDS THE SUPREME COURT TO TELL IT THAT REGULATING….

    DC HAS ALREADY GOTTEN IN THE GAME.

     APR 7, 2017 – WASHINGTON (CNN) THE SENATE FRIDAY MORNING CONFIRMED NEIL GORSUCH, A 49-YEAR-OLD FEDERAL JUDGE WHO COULD HELP CEMENT A CONSERVATIVE …

    ——————————————————–

    The Michael Bloomberg Nanny State In New York: A Cautionary Tale

    www.forbes.com/…/the-michael-bloomberg-nanny-state-in-new-york-a-cautionary-tal…

    May 10, 2013 – Since New York City Mayor Bloomberg announced the 20-ounce soda ban last fall, the controversy has garnered national attention. But, this is just the latest example of his attempt to expand the “nanny state” that has become New York City.

    ———————————————————————–

    Meet Bloomberg | Nanny State

    https://www.meetbloomberg.com/nanny-state/

    Bloomberg’s 12 years as mayor of New York City have been referred to as a “stereotypically laughable example of a liberal nanny state at its worst.

    ———————————————————–

    What Has Bloomberg Tried To Regulate Or Ban In New York City?

    A BETTER QUESTION MIGHT BE WHAT HASN’T HE TRIED TO REGULATE OR BAN.

    HERE’S THE LIST OF SOME OF THE ITEMS ON HIS NANNY AGENDA: ALCOHOL, CALORIE COUNTS, carbon, CELL PHONES, CIGARETTES, contraceptives, composting, fingerprinting, gasoline, NOISE, POLITICS, PRIVACY, SECOND AMENDMENT, SODA, SODIUM, Styrofoam, taxis, tanning, traffic congestion and trans fats.

     BLOOMBERG’S 12 YEARS AS MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO AS A

    “STEREOTYPICALLY LAUGHABLE EXAMPLE OF A LIBERAL NANNY STATE AT ITS WORST. HE “UNLEASHED A TSUNAMI OF PUBLIC HEALTH INITIATIVES” IN AN ATTEMPT TO REGULATE OR BAN DOZENS OF ITEMS AND BEHAVIORS FROM BIG GULPS TO CIGARETTES, from composting to trans fats.

    HE DID THIS BECAUSE HE THINKS THERE ARE TIMES WHEN GOVERNMENT  “SHOULD INFRINGE ON YOUR FREEDOM.” 

    BLOOMBERG DOESN’T THINK YOU KNOW WHAT YOU WANT, OR WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU.

    HE HAS ACTUALLY SAID,“YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU CARE ABOUT.

    BECAUSE WHAT YOU CARE ABOUT CHANGES WITH WHAT’S GOING ON IN THE WORLD,

     AND YOU NEED SOMEBODY TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS FOR YOU.”

    And Bloomberg has spent his billions trying to be that somebody.

    Bloomberg’s ban on cell phones in schools simply showed how out-of-touch he was with today’s realities.

    ———————————————————————————

    The Complete List of Everything Banned by Mayor Michael Bloomberg

    gizmodo.com/the-complete-list-of-everything-banned-by-mayor-michael-1490476691

    DEC 31, 2013 – Michael Bloomberg leaves office tomorrow after 12 years as New York City’s mayor. No mayor in recent memory has added so much to a city. Or taken so much away. To remember him properly, here’s a list of everything Bloomberg banned during his time in office.

    —————————————————————————————-

    Is American freedom suffering  from being micromanaged  by  Nanny States,  government? THAT MAKE TOO MANY LAWS, about how people should live their lives, especially about, gun control, eating, smoking, or drinking, coffee, water, sugary water, energy drinks,  overprotective or interfering unduly with personal choices, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    Like, driving to work holding your morning cup of Starbucks? Or eating a McDonalds  egg McMuffin in your car?

    Jul 27, 2017 Absolutely no one likes to be micromanaged. It’s frustrating, demoralizing, and demotivating. Yet, some states can’t seem to help …

    Down Right insulting,  WA State’s Micromanaging Nanny’s,   PASSING A LAW, THAT CONNOTES ANYONE DRIVING IN WA STATE (including tourists) CAN’T CHEW GUM AND DRIVE AT THE SAME TIME……..

    Connotes by definition: imply or suggest (an idea or feeling) in addition to the literal or primary meaning.

    Micromanagement is Mismanagement.

    Micro-managers are bad news for business and bad news for employees.

    They dis-empower staff, stifle opportunity and innovation, and give rise to poor performance.

    MICROMANAGEMENT IS JUST PLAIN BAD MANAGEMENT.


  • WA State DOE Emergency Fee Rule?

    July 20, 2016 Public Records Emergency Rule WAC 173-03-9000E Calculation of actual costs of producing copies of public records declared to be unduly burdensome—Adoption of statutory fee schedule.

     SO? THE DOE?  SOMEBODY DECLARED AN EMERGENCY DOE RULE?

     WAC… WAC… WAC…

    WHY BOTHER WITH THE ACTUAL COST FOR PRODUCING COPIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS FOR THE PUBLIC?

    HB 1595, passed in the 2017 legislative session

    Chapter 304, Laws of 2017, sc. 3, amending RCW 42.56.120,

    AND AN AGENCY MUST HAVE IN PLACE EITHER A STATEMENT FOLLOWING (PUBLIC?)  NOTICE AND PUBLIC HEARING THAT ESTABLISHES THE ACTUAL COSTS OF PRODUCING RECORDS….

    AND THAT WOULD BE UNDULY BURDENSOME FOR THE DOE?

    SO, THE DOE WILL ADOPT THE STATUTORY FEE SCHEDULE.

    —————————————————————————–

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

    To: ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK@LISTSERV.WA.GOV

    Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 4:44 PM

    Subject: The following emergency rulemaking adoption was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser: Public Records Emergency Rule WAC 173-03-

    The following emergency rulemaking adoption was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser:

    July 20, 2016

    Public Records Emergency Rule WAC 173-03-9000E Calculation of actual costs of producing copies of public records declared to be unduly burdensome—Adoption of statutory fee schedule.

    For more information:

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/laws-rules/wac17303/1614ov.html

    To join or leave ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK click here:

    http://listserv.wa.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A0=ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK

    Thank you for using WACTrack.

    Have a good day!

    ———————————————————————————-

    Representative Terry Nealey (R-Dayton) and Representative Joan McBride (D-Kirkland) introduced the bills.  They would update the 1972 Public Records Act, INCLUDING FEES contained in the original law

    HB 1595, passed in the 2017 legislative session

    HB 1595 BECAME LAW ON JULY 23, 2017

    Chapter 304, Laws of 2017, sc. 3, amending RCW 42.56.120,  

    THE PROVISION OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (PRA) THAT GOVERNS AGENCY CHARGES TO REQUESTERS FOR PROVIDING COPIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS.

    According to a 2016 report from the Washington State Auditor’s Office, the number of requests increased by 36% from 2011 to 2015, and last year, state and local governments spent more than $60 million to fulfill 285,000 requests – a portion of which were automated “bot” requests from computers. Only 1% of the costs were recovered by the original law’s fee structure.

    These amendments in HB 1595 were designed to modernize this provision to reflect changes in the way agencies PROVIDE copies of records to requesters.

    and an agency must have in place either a statement following notice and public hearing that establishes the ACTUAL COSTS of producing records,

     or a rule that declares the calculation of actual costs would be “unduly burdensome.” Otherwise, an agency would not be able to impose copy fees on PRA requestors.

    HB 1595  IS A NEW WA STATE LAW EFFECTIVE  JULY 23, 2017

    WITH FEES BASED ON ACTUAL COST?

    Representative Terry Nealey (R-Dayton)  said actual costs could also be based upon a SEATTLE CITY DETAILED COST STUDY.

    “The city of Seattle estimates it will spend as much as $3 million this year for PRA request fulfilment, including electronic requests, but expects less than $10,000 in cost recovery,”

    Representative Terry Nealey (R-Dayton) added. “Our legislation would enable an agency to study its actual costs of making and preparing for delivery electronic copies of documents for a requestor,

    AND THEN CHARGE A MODEST FEE BASED ON COPYING COSTS.

    WE THINK THIS WILL REDUCE VEXATIOUS REQUESTS WHILE PRESERVING ACCESS WITH AN UPDATED FEE SYSTEM.”

    ——————————————————————————–

    AND, THEN CHARGE A MODEST FEE BASED ON ACTUAL COST?

    ————————————————————————————–

     Behind My Back | Fee Fie Foe Fum

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/26/fee-fie-foe-fum/

    Oct 26, 2013 – “Feefifofum” is the first line of a historical quatrain famous for its use in the classic English fairy … http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee-fie-foefum.

     ——————————————————————————–

    ECOLOGY is taking the latter approach, declaring by rule that it will be “unduly burdensome” to calculate actual costs, and has already filed a pre-proposal to begin the permanent rulemaking process.

    ECOLOGY will conduct this permanent rulemaking according to normal rulemaking procedures, but cannot complete it until some months after the requirements of HB 1595 take effect on July 23, 2017.

    ECOLOGY finds that it is in the general welfare and the public interest, and benefits requesters and the agency, to adopt the emergency rule in order to preserve AND UPDATE FEES in accordance with the legislatively adopted schedule.

    Without further action, this would create a period of months during which no statement or rule would be available to the public regarding PRA costs or the methods of calculating them, creating confusion and uncertainty regarding Ecology’s fee structure and ITS ABILITY TO CHARGE FEES.

    Because this appears to be contrary to the intent of HB 1595 and the PRA,

    ECOLOGY intends to adopt its declaration initially by emergency rule, to avoid confusion and to remain in compliance with the PRA, as amended.

    This declaration will allow Ecology to utilize the statutory default fee schedule created by the Legislature in the 2017 amendments starting on July 23, 2017, the date the legislation goes into effect, and to be in full compliance with the PRA, as amended.

    ————————————————————————————–

    ECOLOGY WILL CONDUCT THIS PERMANENT RULEMAKING ACCORDING TO NORMAL RULEMAKING PROCEDURES, BUT CANNOT COMPLETE IT UNTIL SOME MONTHS AFTER THE REQUIREMENTS OF HB 1595 TAKE EFFECT ON JULY 23, 2017.

     ECOLOGY has already filed a pre-proposal to begin the permanent rulemaking process.

    A STATEMENT FOLLOWING (PUBLIC?)  NOTICE AND PUBLIC HEARING THAT ESTABLISHES THE ACTUAL COSTS OF PRODUCING RECORDS….

    ——————————————————-

    To join or leave ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK click here:

    http://listserv.wa.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A0=ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK

    Thank you for using WACTrack.

    Have a good day!

    ——————————————————————

    Has anyone received a definitive legal  answer to this question?

    Behind My Back | WA DOE $50 Comment Recording Fee?

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/07/12/6854/

    Jul 12, 2017 – Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of …. www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/26/fee-fie-foe-fum/.


  • WA State Priorities for WSP?

    I AM SUBMITTING FATALITY DATA ON DRUG AND DRIVING:  IN RAW FORMAT AND PUTTING OUT A CALL TO ACTION, BY GOVERNOR INSLEE (D) AND WA STATE LEGISLATORS, TO JUMP IN AND ANALYZE IT.

    WASHINGTON STATE PATROL (WSP) HAS MORE CRITICAL RESPONSIBILITIES, THEN BEING FORCED, TO WASTE THEIR TIME GIVING OUT TICKETS FOR WA STATES NEW DISTRACTED DRIVING LAW.

    WA STATE CRIME LAB DATA ON OPIOIDS IS DATA FROM WASHINGTON STATE PATROL FORENSIC LABORATORY SERVICES BUREAU.

    WA STATE RATE OF CRIME LAB CASES WITH ANY OPIATE RESULT

    OPIOID CASES BY COUNTY

    2002 – 2004 State-wide rate 19.8 per 100,000

    2011 – 2013 State-wide rate 36.7 per 100,000

    ————————————————–

    AND,  IN WASHINGTON STATE, DRUG CAUSED DEATHS INVOLVING OPIOIDS INCREASED 31% STATEWIDE, WITH INCREASES IN MOST COUNTIES.

    AND, IN 2013 WASHINGTON STATE RANKED 23RD HIGHEST IN DRUG CAUSED DEATHS

    Jun 23, 2017 CNN SEATTLE KING COUNTY, HEROIN-RELATED DEATHS INCREASED 439% FROM 1999 TO 2014. AS OF 2014, HEROIN-RELATED DEATHS HAD MORE THAN TRIPLED IN FIVE YEARS AND QUINTUPLED IN 10 YEARS. THE LARGEST RISE IN LOCAL DRUG-RELATED DEATHS IN 17 YEARS.

    WA STATE LEGISLATOR’S PRIORITIES FOR WSP?

    WSP CRITICAL RESPONSIBILITIES?

    DRUG FATALITIES OR DISTRACTED DRIVING TICKETS?

    —————————————————————

    JUN 6, 2017 Drug overdoses are now the leading cause of death among Americans under 50.

    Jun 6, 2017 – New data compiled from hundreds of health agencies reveals the extent of the drug overdose epidemic last year

    AKRON, OhioDRUG OVERDOSE DEATHS IN 2016 MOST LIKELY EXCEEDED 59,000, the largest annual jump ever recorded in the United States, according to preliminary data compiled by The New York Times.

    The death count is the latest consequence of an escalating public health crisis: opioid addiction, now made more deadly by an influx of illicitly manufactured fentanyl and similar drugs.

    In 2016, Summit County, Ohio had 312 drug deaths, according to Gary Guenther, the county medical examiner’s chief investigator —

     A 46 PERCENT INCREASE FROM 2015 AND MORE THAN TRIPLE THE 99 CASES THAT WENT THROUGH THE MEDICAL EXAMINER’S OFFICE JUST TWO YEARS BEFORE.

    There were so many last year, Mr. Guenther said, that on three separate occasions the county had to request refrigerated trailers to store the bodies because they’d run out of space in the morgue.

    NATIONWIDE? WE ESTIMATE DRUG OVERDOSE DEATHS INCREASED BY MORE THAN 25 PERCENT IN 2016.

    WA STATE CRIME LAB DATA ON OPIOIDS IS DATA FROM WASHINGTON STATE PATROL FORENSIC LABORATORY SERVICES BUREAU.

    —————————————————————-

     WA STATE PERCENT OF FATALITIES RELATED TO ALCOHOL 41.86% (on average from 2000 to 2015) Summary: August 29, 2016

    WASHINGTON STATE PATROL (WSP) HAS MORE CRITICAL RESPONSIBILITIES, THEN BEING FORCED, TO WASTE THEIR TIME GIVING OUT TICKETS FOR WA STATES NEW DISTRACTED DRIVING LAW.

    ———————————————————————–

    WA STATE LEGISLATOR’S PRIORITIES FOR WSP?

    DRUG FATALITIES OR DISTRACTED DRIVING TICKETS?

    ———————————————————————–

     Click on this link (it takes time to load)

    SEVERAL DATA SOURCES ARE MAPPED, THE MAPS COMBINED, WITH THE UPDATED DRUG CAUSED DEATHS, CLEARLY SHOW WHY WASHINGTON STATE PATROL HAS MORE CRITICAL RESPONSIBILITIES THEN WASTING THEIR TIME GIVING OUT TICKETS FOR WA STATE NEW DISTRACTED DRIVING LAW.

     Opioid Trends Across Washington State

    Apr 20, 2015 adai.uw.edu/pubs/infobriefs/ADAI-IB-2015-01.pdf

     ———————————————————–

    INDEED, FATALITY DATA IN RAW FORMAT AND PUTTING OUT A CALL TO ACTION, BY GOVERNOR INSLEE AND WA STATE LEGISLATORS, TO JUMP IN AND ANALYZE IT.

    ————————————————————————–

    NATION WIDE DRUG DEATHS, IN 2013 NEARLY 44,000

    NATIONWIDE OVERDOSE DEATHS IN 2016 OVER 59,000  

    COMPARED TO  35,092,  2015 VEHICLE DEATHS,  only a 7.2% increase over 2014.

    ———————————————————————–

    Jun 23, 2017

    This is America on drugs: A visual guide – CNN.com

    www.cnn.com/2016/09/23/health/heroin-opioid-drug-overdose-deaths…/index.html

    Jun 23, 2017 – DRUG DEATHS OVER THE PAST 15 YEARS HAVE BEEN RISING SO RAPIDLY THAT EXPERTS … IT FOUND THAT DRUGS DEATHS CONTINUE TO RISE RAPIDLY IN MANY STATES.

    HEROIN-RELATED DEATHS INCREASED 439% FROM 1999 TO 2014. AS OF 2014, HEROIN-RELATED DEATHS HAD MORE THAN TRIPLED IN FIVE YEARS AND QUINTUPLED IN 10 YEARS.

    ————————————————————————————-

    INDEED, OPIOID USE, MORBIDITY, AND MORTALITY HAVE INCREASED NATIONALLY AND ACROSS WASHINGTON STATE.

    FATALITY DATA IN RAW FORMAT AND PUTTING OUT A CALL TO ACTION BY GOVERNOR INSLEE AND WA STATE LEGISLATORS, TO JUMP IN AND ANALYZE IT.

     Heroin deaths spike by 58 percent in Seattle area | The Seattle Times

    www.seattletimes.com/seattle…/heroin-deaths-spike-nearly-60-percent-in-seattle-area/

    JUN 18, 2015 – There were NEARLY 44,000 DRUG- OVERDOSE DEATHS NATIONWIDE IN 2013, the most recent figures available. Washington state ranked 23rd highest …

    Fatal overdoses linked to heroin climbed by 58 percent in the Seattle/King County area last year, THE LARGEST RISE IN LOCAL DRUG-RELATED DEATHS IN 17 YEARS. Methamphetamine-related deaths also rose 59 percent. Fatal overdoses linked to heroin surged by 58 percent in King County last year, fueling the steepest rise in local drug-caused deaths in 17 years.

    Jun 6, 2017 – New data compiled from hundreds of health agencies reveals the extent of the drug overdose epidemic last year

    —————————————————————————

    CRIME LAB DATA, DATA FROM WASHINGTON STATE PATROL FORENSIC LABORATORY SERVICES BUREAU…

    FOR POLICE EVIDENCE TESTING INDICATE AN 85% INCREASE STATEWIDE, WITH INCREASES IN MOST COUNTIES.

    PUBLICLY FUNDED DRUG TREATMENT ADMISSIONS FOR OPIOIDS AS THE PRIMARY DRUG INCREASED 197% STATEWIDE, WITH INCREASES IN 38 OF 39 COUNTIES.

    ——————————————————————————–

    WA STATE LEGISLATOR’S PRIORITIES FOR WSP?

    DRUG FATALITIES OR DISTRACTED DRIVING TICKETS?

    WA STATE, DRUG CAUSED DEATHS INVOLVING OPIOIDS INCREASED 31% STATEWIDE, WITH INCREASES IN MOST COUNTIES.

    AND, NATIONWIDE? THEY ESTIMATE DRUG OVERDOSE DEATHS INCREASED BY MORE THAN 25 PERCENT IN 2016.

    Opioid Trends Across Washington State

    Apr 20, 2015 adai.uw.edu/pubs/infobriefs/ADAI-IB-2015-01.pdf

    —————————————————————————-

    WA STATE RATE OF CRIME LAB CASES WITH ANY OPIATE RESULT

    OPIOID CASES BY COUNTY

    Data notes: Crime LAB DATA FROM THE WASHINGTON STATE PATROL FORENSIC LABORATORY SERVICES BUREAU: An “opiate case” refers to a unique FLSB case number with at least one result positive for any opiate. Only crime lab submissions from an agency clearly operating within a single county were associated with a county. Those originating from multi-county agencies, such as cross-jurisdiction drug task forces, some Washington State Patrol detachments, or federal law enforcement, are included in the state-wide rate.

    OPIOID USE, MORBIDITY, AND MORTALITY HAVE INCREASED NATIONALLY AND ACROSS WASHINGTON STATE. To provide insights into how and where changes are occurring, several data sources are mapped. Crime lab, treatment, and mortality data are presented for 2002–2004 and 2011–2013, to show patterns over time. These maps combine heroin and prescription-type opioids as those abusing these drugs often use them interchangeably, and interventions, treatment and the opioid overdose antidote naloxone, work equally well for both types of opioids.

    Crime lab data for police evidence testing indicate an 85% increase statewide, with increases in most counties. Publicly funded drug treatment admissions for opioids as the primary drug increased 197% statewide, with increases in 38 of 39 counties. Drug caused deaths involving opioids increased 31% statewide, with increases in most counties.

    The total number of drug caused deaths involving opioids in 2013 was 608, with 6,668 deaths total from 2002–2013. The annual rate of opioid deaths has not changed from 2008 to 2013.

    —————————————————————————-

    UPDATED  BY OTHERS Jun 6, 2017 – New data compiled from hundreds of health agencies reveals the extent of the drug overdose epidemic last year

    ——————————————————————————————

    continued….

    Across these three data sources a similar pattern emerges with prescription-type opioids peaking between 2008–2010, while heroin continued increasing through 2013.

    ——————————————————–

    WA STATE LEGISLATOR’S PRIORITIES FOR WSP?

    DRUG FATALITIES OR DISTRACTED DRIVING TICKETS?

    —————————————————————–

    46,471: Drug Overdoses Killed More Americans Than Car Crashes or …

    www.cnsnews.com/…/dea-drug-overdoses-kill-more-americans-car-crashes-or-firearm…

    Nov 5, 2015 – (CNSNews.com) – “Drug overdose deaths are the leading cause of injury death in the United States, ahead of motor vehicle deaths and …

    ————————————————————–

    Drug Deaths in America Are Rising Faster Than Ever | Diverse Health …

    https://diversehealthservices.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/drug-deaths-in-america-are-ri…

    Jun 6, 2017 – New data compiled from hundreds of health agencies reveals the extent of the drug overdose epidemic last year. AKRON, Ohio — Drug …

    we estimate overdose deaths increased by more than 25 percent in 2016.

    www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/05/upshot/opioid-epidemic-drug-overdose-deaths-are-rising-faster-than-ever.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

    ———————————————————————————

    The most dangerous states for car accidents | Transportation …

    www.nwitimes.com/…/the-most-dangerous-states…accidents/collection_44bc28fd-4a1…

    JUN 19, 2017 – Despite recent gains in car safety, 2016 ended up being a deadly year for drivers.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Summary: August 29, 2016

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is releasing 2015 TRAFFIC FATALITY DATA IN RAW FORMAT AND PUTTING OUT A CALL TO ACTION TO JUMP IN AND ANALYZE IT.

    ——————————————————

    On a scale from 1-50, with 50 being the safest, WA State is #45  for safest driving. (on average from 2000 to 2015)

    # 45 Washington

    Average fatalities  in a  year (per 100,000) 8.53

    Total Fatalities  8,789

    WA STATE PERCENT OF FATALITIES RELATED TO ALCOHOL 41.86%

    ———————————————————-

    ANOTHER WSP CRITICAL RESPONSIBILITY….. INVESTIGATING ACCIDENTS

    THAT CLEARLY SHOWS WHY WASHINGTON STATE PATROL HAS MORE CRITICAL RESPONSIBILITIES THEN WASTING THEIR TIME GIVING OUT TICKETS FOR WA STATE NEW DISTRACTED DRIVING LAW.

     ————————————————————————————

    35,092.the number of people who died on our nation’s highways in motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2015.

    To be precise, 7.2% more people died in traffic-related accidents in 2015 than in 2014. The U.S. Department of Transportation Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)

    ———————————————————————————

    America leads the world in drug overdose deaths — by a lot – Vox

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/28/…/drug-overdose-deaths-world

    AMERICA LEADS THE WORLD IN DRUG OVERDOSE DEATHS — BY A LOT … Updated by German Lopez@germanrlopezgerman.lopez@vox.com JUN 28, 2017, 8:10am EDT.

    ——————————————————————————

    REMEMBER BEAUTIFUL OHIO?

    Ohio drug overdose deaths in one county already top last year’s total …

    www.foxnews.com/…/2017/…/ohio-drug-overdose-deaths-in-one-county-already-top-la…

    Jun 5, 2017 – AS OF JUNE 1, THE COUNTY HAD TALLIED 360 DRUG OVERDOSE DEATHS. “AT THIS PACE, WE EXPECT ABOUT 800 OVERDOSE DEATHS BY THE END OF 2017,” Ken …

     STATEWIDE, MORE THAN 4,000 PEOPLE DIED FROM DRUG OVERDOSES LAST YEAR. AND IN 2015, OHIO HAD THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF PRESCRIPTION OPIOID OVERDOSE DEATHS — 1,800 — OF ANY STATE IN THE NATION, ACCORDING TO THE LATEST FIGURES IN AN analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

    —————————————————————————————–

    INDEED, I  REMEMBER BEAUTIFUL OHIO

    Connie Francis – Beautiful Ohio (stereo remastered) – YouTube

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_1ZneQhawI

    Apr 25, 2016 – 50+ videos Play all. Play now. Mix – Connie Francis – Beautiful Ohio (stereo remastered)YouTube. Connie Francis – Melody of Love (stereo …


  • WA Gov. Inslee (D) “The Taxman Cometh”

    HIGHLIGHTS OF THE 2017-2019 WA STATE BUDGET

    On page on page 15 OF 43

    OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS, STATE REVENUE COLLECTIONS AS A

    SHARE OF THE ECONOMY HAVE FALLEN BY NEARLY 30%

     —————————————————————

    INDEED, THE DEMOCRATIC TAXMEN SHALL COMETH TO APPROPRIATE 2017-2019.

    WHAT ELSE COULD A WORKING TAXPAYER EXPECT FROM  A LEGISLATURE CONTROLLED  BY DEMOCRAT’S AND A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR INSLEE WITH VETO POWER

    READ IT AND WEEP  (locate your local food bank)

    2017–19 budget & policy highlights – Public School Employees of …

    pseclassified.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/70/files/2016/12/Budget-Highlights.pdf

    INSLEE’S PROPOSED BUDGET would fully fund basic education and set new course … job of fully funding Washington’s schools. … which will require billions of dollars in new state support.

    BUT THERE ARE NEEDS BEYOND ……

    MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT IS ALSO INCREASED TO MEET FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.

    Budget highlights – Office of Financial Management – Access Washington

    www.ofm.wa.gov › Budget › State Budgets › 2017-19 Governor’s proposed budgets

    Bold Action Now: Proposed 2017–19 Budget Highlights … Natural Resources; General Government; State Employees; Transportation; Capital; Budget Summary …

    —————————————————————–

    WHY CALL IT “THE NEW NORMAL “IN WA STATE?

    WHEN, THIS ” IS NORMAL” FOR THE GOV INSLEE AND HIS DEMOCRATS…

    June 2017 In what has become THE NEW NORMAL, Washington state lawmakers are expected to go into a third special sessions … In 2013, it took 156 days and three special sessions. …

    2nd Special Session ends, 3rd starts with Inslee vowing to veto “stop …

    www.spokesman.com/…/2nd-special-session-day-30-could-also-be-3rd-special-sessio…

    Jun 21, 2017 – Second special session ended and a third one started Wednesday as … time in state history a Legislature failed to pass a two-year budget before … state’s public school system mandated by the Washington Supreme Court.

    ———————————————————

    OFM | Governor Jay Inslee’s Proposed 2017-19 Budget

    ofm.wa.gov/budget17/default.asp

    Details of the 2017–19 Book 1 (“current law”) budget are available at the Washington State Fiscal Information website. The “Book 1” budget does not reflect the (what?) … Governor’s proposal to the Legislature.

    ———————————————————-

    PRIORITY  BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS BILLS PASSED BY THE CONTROLLING DEMOCRATS

    INDEED THE DEMOCRATIC TAXMEN MUST COMETH TO APPROPRIATE 2017-2019.

    WHATEVER THE COST TO WA STATE WORKING TAXPAYERS?

    —————————————————

     

    ———————————————-

     School funding: Fines hit $67 million, still no McCleary fix from WA …

    www.bellinghamherald.com/article155432304.html

    Jun 11, 2017 – Contempt of court fines over school funding in Washington state will hit $67 million this week, but the Legislature still can’t agree on HOW TO PAY FOR BASIC EDUCATION. … Court imposed a $100,000 penalty for each day the Legislature failed to … “The important thing is to get the school-funding formula right, and …

    —————————————————————————————

    TWO REALLY BIG QUESTIONS. 

    WHO POCKETED  THE $67,000,000.00 MILLION DOLLARS IN FINES?  

    WHAT DID THE COURT DO WITH THE MONEY?

    ———————————————————————–

    WHATEVER THE COST TO WA STATE TAXPAYERS?

    THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 The U.S. Supreme Court found that “the plain intent of Congress in enacting” the ESA “was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, WHATEVER THE COST.”

     WA STATE BUDGET 2019-2019 MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT IS ALSO INCREASED TO MEET FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.

    —————————————————————–

    PRIORITY  BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS BILLS PASSED BY CONTROLLING DEMOCRATS

    2017-19 CAPITAL APPROPRIATIONS Bill (HB 1075 / SB 5086)

    ————————————————————————————-

     DEMOCRAT ATTORNEY GENERAL BOB FERGUSON HAS A LOT TO DO WITH THE 2017-2019 BUDGET.

    MAY 19, 2017 WA STATE  DEMOCRAT  ATTORNEY GENERAL BOB FERGUSON  APPEALED  THE MULTI-BILLION BATTLE OVER SALMON CULVERTS, AND WA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL BOB FERGUSON LOST IT!

    COSTING WA STATE WORKING TAXPAYER’S BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO REPLACE FISH CULVERTS.

    ————————————————————–

    Washington state loses big legal battle over salmon culverts | The …

    www.seattletimes.com/…/washington-state-loses-big-legal-battle-over-salmon-culverts/

    May 19, 2017 – “Fixing fish-blocking culverts under state roads will open upANOTHER,  9TH CIRCUIT COURT’S,  U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE RICARDO MARTINEZ  (DECLINED TO EVEN CONSIDER WA STATE’S APPEAL) FORCING WA STATE TO SPEND BILLIONS TO REPLACE CULVERTS THAT IN SOME …

     —————————————————————

    Jun 27, 2016 – By 2030, the state must replace about 800 highway culverts at a cost of … the court upheld virtually all of the findings of THE  9TH CIRCUIT COURT’S DECISION. U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE RICARDO MARTINEZ DECISION. … Washington tribes by allowing culverts that diminish salmon runs. … The ruling also applies to culverts owned by the state Department of Fish and …

     ————————————————————————————–

    2013 Martinez gave the state 15 years to reopen 90 percent of the habitat blocked by its culverts in western Washington. The state has said replacing its culverts will cost at least $2 billion. Between 2013-15, the state corrected 76 fish-blocking culverts.

    At the current schedule, replacing the remaining 800 culverts would be completed by 2060 – 30 years past the deadline, according to the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.

    —————————————————–

    WHATEVER THE COST TO WA STATE TAXPAYERS?

    WA STATE BUDGET  2017-2019  Adds  funding to meet court-ordered removal of

    Fish passage barrier removal fish passage barriers to improve fish access to habitat. This represents a $145.3 million increase over current funding levels and provides an average biennial spending level of about $90.0 million over the next 16 years. ($97.5 million  2017–19; $724.0 million over 16 years)

     ——————————————————————————-

     May 2, 2017 MEET BOB FERGUSON WA State Attorney General…

    JULY 14, 2017 Perhaps by now, you’ve already heard of him?

     In the space of a few days, WA State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, a Democrat just beginning his second term, has gone from unknown state attorney general in the far corner of the country to making national headlines.. Fergeson’s quote  I wouldn’t have filed it if I didn’t think I was going to win; after appealing a federal case before a  9th circuit court judge and winning a stay.

    ———————————————————

    May 2, 2017 MEET BOB FERGUSON

    Now a toast of the progressive community, Ferguson views the law as a profoundly moral enterprise.

    FERGUSON IS A REMARKABLY HUMBLE, PRIVATE MAN….

    HE SAID, “WHEN I RAN FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL IN 2012, I WOULD TELL PEOPLE I BELIEVE THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO BE THE MOST CONSEQUENTIAL POSITION IN GOVERNMENT”

    SOME WOULD SAY THAT FERGUSON IS OBSESSIVE:

    BOB FERGUSON SAID, “After the shock [of Trump’s election victory] wore off,” the attorney general said, speaking by phone from the state capital of Olympia. “I WANTED MY OFFICE TO BE READY IN CASE PRESIDENT TRUMP ATTEMPTED TO DELIVER ON SOME OF HIS CAMPAIGN PROMISES……

    ( LOL JULY 14, 2017)

    ———————————–

    As a school kid, Ferguson would frequently neglect to do his homework so he could spend more time on the game.

    When the order  was unveiled, WA STATE  DEMOCRAT  Attorney General Bob Ferguson  was meeting with other Democratic state attorneys general in Fort Lauderdale, discussing likely challenges they would face from the Trump administration on immigration law, civil rights, environmental regulations, and other key policy areas.

    SOME WOULD SAY THAT FERGUSON IS OBSESSIVE:

    Within minutes of the order being signed, Ferguson’s team—including an expanded civil-rights division, which he had prepared over the past several months for just such a moment, and which had been in contact with Democratic attorneys general nationwide to work out how to respond to such actions—

    “The reason I went to law school is because when used in the right way, the law can have a profound impact on people in really personal ways.”

     https://www.thenation.com/article/meet-bob-ferguson-the-washington-state-attorney-general-who-shut-down-trumps-muslim-ban/

    ———————————————————————-

     So, In the space of a few days, WA State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, a Democrat just beginning his second term, has gone from unknown state attorney general in the far corner of the country to making national headlines.

    9th U.S. Circuit Court  Judge James L. Robart, 69,  blocked President Trumps temporary immigration ban and the … decision – later upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals –

    AND,  Jun 26, 2017 THE US SUPREME COURT In a partial win for President Trump, the court said a limited travel ban could. PRESIDENT TRUMP  later tweeted: “Very grateful for the 9-O decision from the U. S. Supreme Court. .

    AND WA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL BOB FERGUSON (D) LOST IT!

    —————————————————————————————-

    JULY 14, 2017 INDEED, YOU MUST MEET (TWO TIME LOSER)  BOB FERGUSON

    Meet Bob Ferguson, the Washington State Attorney General Who Shut …

    https://www.thenation.com/…/meet-bob-ferguson-the-washington-state-attorney-gener…

    May 2, 2017 – Now a toast of the progressive community, Ferguson views the law as a profoundly moral enterprise.