+menu-


  • Category Archives This Is The Law
  • Is Donald J. Trump Politically Incorrect?

    FOR TELLING THE TRUTH

    FOR EXPOSING THE HISTORY OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND MEDIA PUNDITS SPEAKING AND REPEATING (AND REPEATING AND REPEATING) UNTRUTHS TO SHAPE PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY.

    IF TELLING THE TRUTH, TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, A RIGGED PRIMARY ELECTION SYSTEM, EXPOSING THE LIES, LEFT OR RIGHT, RIGHT OR WRONG, IS POLITICALLY INCORRECT FOR AN AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

     I STAND WITH DONALD J. TRUMP.

    AM I POLITICALLY INCORRECT FOR POSTING THIS?

    “The truth is more important than the facts.”
    Frank Lloyd Wright

    “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
    John Adams, The Portable John Adams

    ———————————————

    Hillary: I’m Not Lying, So The Benghazi Families Must Be – Guy Bensontownhall.com/…/hillary-im-not-lying-so-the-benghazi-families-must-be…

    Townhall.com

    Posted: Jan 04, 2016 10:25 AM

    – He said she then told George Stephanopoulos that she didn’t tell the families the attack was a demonstration about a film. “Somebody is lying,” …

    Hillary: I’m Not Lying, So The Benghazi Families Must Be

    ———————————————————————

    Video Hillary Clinton Barks At Her Own Lies During Speeches | The …

    dailycaller.com/…/watch-dog-lie-watch-dogbarkh

    The Daily Caller
    Feb 17, 2016

    Watch Dog Lie, Watch Dog Bark: Hillary Fact Checks Her Own … (VIDEO: Hillary Barks Like A Dog While …

    Donald Trump May 19 2016 Crooked Hillary Barking Like a Dog …

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMZqS7q7voY
    Mar 16, 2016 – Uploaded by dp_video_content

    Why is Hillary Clinton barking like a dog? Donald Trump is going to completely destroy Hillary Clinton in …

    ——————————————————————————-

    The 6 Biggest Lies About Benghazi – Breitbart

    www.breitbart.com/…/05/…/the-6-biggest-lies-about-benghazi
    Breitbart News Network

    May 2, 2014 – Here, then, are the top six top lies told by the White House with regard to the … President Obama Called The Benghazi Attacks Terrorist Attacks.

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Did All She Could To Protect State Department Personnel. In her now-infamous testimony before Congress, Clinton shouted, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” with reference to the source and rationale for the attacks. Obviously, it made a difference to the White House, which wanted focus on the YouTube video rather than on “broader foreign policy” issues.

    Hillary has never answered where exactly she was that night. According to Hicks,

    after speaking briefly with Hillary Clinton at 2 a.m. on the night of the attacks, she never called back to find out the latest developments.

    Barack Obama, too, is absent from the Benghazi story; we now know he never entered the Situation Room.

    ————————————

    Hillary Clinton Ad – 3 AM White House Ringing Phone – YouTube

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yr7odFUARg
    May 15, 2008 – Uploaded by Geekylife

    Hillary was not there to take the 3am call on Benghazi”

    Just saying… Just asking?

    “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

    TRUMP is  the front-runner in the 2016 REPUBLICAN  presidential primaries,

    YOUR VOTE IN NOV. 2016 WILL DECIDE WHO ANSWERS THAT CALL

    ———————————————————————————

    Hillary Clinton & Obama — Benghazi Lies Pile Up | National Review …

    www.nationalreview.com/article/…/hillary-clinton-obamabenghazili
    National Review

    Oct 29, 2015Hillary Clinton and Obama’s Lies on Benghazi — Too Many to Count, but Let’s Try. … They lied about the slaughter of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, at the hands of al-Qaeda-tied terrorists. … Although I am a confirmed and consistent critic of Hillary and Obama, I long had cut …

    ———————————————————————————

    13 Hours Confirms Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s Lies about Benghaziwww.nationalreview.com/…/13-hours-movie-benghazi-obama-hillary…

    National Review

    Jan 21, 2016 – Beyond the lies that it illustrates, 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi very effectively captures the heartache of watching deserted …

    ———————————————————————————

    IF TELLING THE TRUTH, TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, A RIGGED PRIMARY ELECTION SYSTEM, EXPOSING THE LIES, LEFT OR RIGHT, RIGHT OR WRONG, IS POLITICALLY INCORRECT FOR AN AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

     I STAND WITH DONALD J. TRUMP.

     —————————————————————-

    10 Big Fat Lies and the Liars Who Told Them | BillMoyers.com

     billmoyers.com/content/10bigfatlies-and-the-liars-who-toldthem/
    Bill D. Moyers
     JUST 2009-1950

    From  Obamacare to weapons of mass destruction, the powers that be have told us some real whoppers over the years.

    No list of the most influential or dangerous liberals in the media is complete without Bill Moyers. Moyers is retired, but liberal journalists never really go away.Investigative journalist Chuck Lewis joined Bill recently to discuss his new book, 935 Lies: The Future of Truth and the Decline of America’s Moral Integrity,

    THAT LOOKS AT THE HISTORY OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND MEDIA PUNDITS SPEAKING AND REPEATING (AND REPEATING AND REPEATING) UNTRUTHS TO SHAPE PUBLIC OPINION AND POLICY.

    1. President Barack Obama on health insurance plans

    “If you like the [health care] plan you have, you can keep it.”

    President Barack Obama, June 6, 2009 (similarly stated numerous times)

    ———————————————————————

    2. President George W. Bush on weapons of mass destruction

    “We found the weapons of mass destruction [in Iraq]. We found biological laboratories.”

    President George W. Bush, May 29, 2003

    ———————————————————————————————-

    3. Vice President Dick Cheney on weapons of mass destruction

    “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”

    Vice President Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002

    —————————————————————————

    4. R.J. Reynolds on the health hazards of cigarettes

    “Cigarette smoking is no more ‘addictive’ than coffee, tea or Twinkies.”

    James W. Johnston, CEO of RJR Nabisco, April 14, 1994

    —————————————————————

    5. President Ronald Reagan on the Iran-Contra scandal

    “In spite of the wildly speculative and false stories of arms for hostages and alleged ransom payments, we did not, repeat, did not, trade weapons or anything else for hostages. Nor will we.”

    President Ronald Reagan, November 13, 1986

    ————————————————————————————-

    6. The Reagan administration on the the El Mozote massacre

    “There is no evidence to confirm that [US-supported El Salvador] government forces systematically massacred civilians in the [El Mozote] operations zone.”

    Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Enders, February 8, 1982

    —————————————————————-

    7. President Richard Nixon on the Watergate break-in

    “I can say categorically that… no one in the White House staff, no one in this administration, presently employed, was involved in this very bizarre incident.”

    President Richard Nixon, discussing the Watergate burglary, August 29, 1972

    ——————————————————————————

    8. President Richard Nixon on covert operations in Chile

    For us to have intervened [in Chile] – intervened in a free election and to have turned it around – I think would have had repercussions all over Latin America…”

    President Richard Nixon, January 4, 1971

    ——————————————————————–

    9. President Lyndon Johnson on the Vietnam War

    “We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.”

    President Lyndon Johnson, October 1964

    In total, 3,403,000 US service members were deployed to Southeast Asia between 1964 and 1975. Roughly 60,000 were killed, and over 150,000 were injured. Millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians also died in the war.

    ———————————————————

    10. Senator Joseph McCarthy on communism

    Senator Joseph McCarthy, February 9, 1950

    ————————————

    My comment on truth

    IS ? “The truth is more important than the facts.”
    Frank Lloyd Wright

    Deny, Deny Until They Die: Agent Orange and the Government …

    https://www.creators.com/…/denydeny-until-they-die-agentorang
    Creators Syndicate

    Jun 27, 2015 – So, the U.S. government has finally decided to help some 2,000 Air Force personnel exposed to Agent Orange residue left over in airplanes …

    —————————————————————————-

    The bottom line

    IF TELLING THE TRUTH, TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, A RIGGED PRIMARY ELECTION SYSTEM, EXPOSING THE LIES, LEFT OR RIGHT, RIGHT OR WRONG, IS POLITICALLY INCORRECT FOR AN AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

     I STAND WITH DONALD J. TRUMP.

    TRUMP is  the front-runner in the 2016 REPUBLICAN  presidential primaries,

    “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

    YOUR VOTE IN NOV. 2016 WILL DECIDE WHO ANSWERS THAT 3:00 AM CALL


  • page 1 “Things That Matter”

    page 1 Things That Matter
    A # 1 bestselling book by Charles Krauthammer.
    “Things That Matter”, his working title started as, “There’s More To Life Than Politics”
    A quotation from Keats, “Beauty is truth, truth beauty— that is all/ Ye need to know on earth, and all ye need to know”.
    “Turns out, we need to know one more thing on earth- politics”
    “In the end, everything must bow to the sovereignty of politics”
    ———————————————————————————-
    Is truth all you need to know?

    LEARNING FROM HISTORY is paramount to my comments.

    —————————————————————————-

    a snippet from “The Disturbing, Shameful History of Childbirth Deaths”

    RELIABLE, SAFE, AND LEGAL BIRTH CONTROL ALLOWED WOMEN TO LIMIT AND TIME THEIR PREGNANCIES,

    AND IT LED TO A DECREASE IN ILLEGAL ABORTIONS, A LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH IN PREGNANT WOMEN HISTORICALLY.

    ————————————————————————

    PLANNED PARENTHOOD Started as the American Birth Control League in 1921, and changed its name to “Planned Parenthood” in 1942

    PLANNED PARENTHOOD HAS BEEN PROVIDING TRUSTED HEALTH CARE FOR NEARLY 100 YEARS.

    ——————————————————————-

    And, a bunch of ill advised conservatives are going to shut down the government in an attempt to defund this ?

    ——————————————————————————————

    Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), has since grown and consists of approximately 85 affiliates and 820 clinics in the United States, with a total budget of USD $1 billion.

    Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), IS THE LARGEST U.S. PROVIDER OF REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES, WITH CLINICAL INTERACTIONS FOCUSED ON BREAST AND CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING, HIV SCREENING AND COUNSELING, CONTRACEPTION, AS WELL AS MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH SERVICES and abortions.

    ——————————————————————————
    The $5 billion presidential campaign? | TheHill
    thehill.com/blogs/…/presidential…/230318-the-5-billion-campaig…
    Jan 21, 2015 – The 2016 presidential election could cost as much as $5 billion,

    —————————————————————————
    My comment…

    With BILLIONS being spent? It is unbelievable that conservative political advisors have, and conservative candidates are using the following defunding agenda in an attempt to WIN the 2016 presidential election?

    REALLY? and, A GROUP OF MORE THAN 30 REPUBLICANS???

    Shutting down the government is a fool’s errand.
    If you want the BLAME, play the shutdown game AGAIN.
    Even if a conservative wins the primary election on this defunding agenda..
    In the long run? WOMEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE
    More women vote than men.
    Women will VOTE to protect their TRUSTED affordable healthcare and their constitutional rights provided by Planned Parenthood.

    ——————————————————————————————
    Conservatives Push Out Boehner Because He Wouldn’t …
    thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/09/…/boehner-steps-down/
    2 days ago – … pressure from the right wing of his conference” to defund Planned Parenthood. … Because He Wouldn’t Shut Down The Government Over Planned Parenthood … funding to avoid a government shutdown before October 1. … A group of more than 30 Republicans recently started threatening to force a …
    ——————————————————————————
    The ugly truth about WA DC politics 1993-2015
    FEDERAL LAW SINCE 1993 “THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH REVITALIZATION ACT” of 1993 103rd Congress (1993-1994) has allowed fetal tissue research. In addition, fetal tissue can be sold at a price that allows an organization to recoup the costs associated with it.

    Setting up Planned Parenthood to take the fall, using hidden cameras and edited videos with atrocious images.
    Going public and blaming Planned Parenthood? for complying with a liberal Act of Congress LAW?

    ———————————————————-
    Did you watch the CSPAN congressional debates on defunding?

    —————————————————————————–
    Of course, the liberals failed to mention, their FAULT in passing the LAW? “THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH REVITALIZATION ACT”, Through no fault of Planned Parenthood was forced to comply with the liberal Act of Congress LAW.

    ——————————————————————
    AND, of course, if conservatives wanted a logical solution to to their problem with  the 2001“NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH REVITALIZATION ACT” they could introduce and pass new legislation to address their concerns. about the  “CLINICAL RESEARCH”.Defined as, research conducted with HUMAN SUBJECTS (OR ON MATERIAL OF HUMAN ORIGIN SUCH AS TISSUES (FETAL TISSUE), SPECIMENS…..
    ——————————————————————————–
    LEARNING FROM HISTORY

     In 2012, Planned Parenthood and ITS SUPPORTERS FEROCIOUSLY ATTACKED the Susan G. Komen Foundation when it sought to discontinue funding
    Feb 4, 2012 – DONORS RUSH TO SUPPORT PLANNED PARENTHOOD; Susan G. Komen for the … to defund Planned Parenthood,”
    ONE IN FIVE AMERICAN WOMEN HAS CHOSEN PLANNED PARENTHOOD FOR HEALTH CARE AT LEAST ONCE IN HER LIFE.

    Throughout its history PPFA has experienced support, controversy, protests, and violent attacks.

    ——————————————————————————-
    Even if a conservative wins the primary election on this defunding agenda..
    In the long run? WOMEN HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE
    More women vote than men.
    Women will VOTE to protect their trusted, affordable healthcare and the constitutional rights provided by Planned Parenthood.
    —————————————————————————————
    WHO ARE THEY?
    We are a trusted health care provider, an informed educator, a passionate advocate, and a global partner helping similar organizations around the world. Planned Parenthood delivers vital reproductive health care, sex education, and information to millions of women, men, and young people worldwide.
    For nearly 100 years, Planned Parenthood has promoted a commonsense approach to women’s health and well-being, based on respect for each individual’s right to make informed, independent decisions about health, sex, and family planning.

    ————————————————————–

    CONGRESS PLANNED AND LEGALIZED THE “CLINICAL RESEARCH“.Defined as, research conducted with HUMAN SUBJECTS (OR ON MATERIAL OF HUMAN ORIGIN SUCH AS TISSUES (FETAL TISSUE), SPECIMENS…..

    —————————————————————————–
    Planned Parenthood planned for BIRTH CONTROL AND OTHER THINGS THAT MATTER
    2015 THE ENTIRE RANGE OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD HEALTH AND ECONOMIC ISSUES.

    Abstinence
    Abusive Relationships
    Adoption
    AIDS
    Anatomy
    Birth Control for Men
    Birth Control Implant
    Birth Control Patch
    Birth Control Pill
    Birth Control Ring
    Birth Control Shot
    Birth Control Sponge
    Breast Cancer
    Breast Exams
    Breastfeeding
    Cervical Cap
    Chancroid
    Chlamydia
    Colposcopy
    Condom
    Copper IUD
    Crabs
    Cryotherapy
    Dental Dams
    Diaphragm
    Dysmenorrhea
    Ectopic Pregnancy
    Female Condom
    Fertility awareness
    Gender Identity
    Genital Warts
    Gonorrhea
    Healthy Relationships
    Hepatitis
    Herpes
    How Pregnancy Happens
    HPV
    HPV Test
    HPV Vaccine
    Infertility
    Infertility (Men)
    Infertility (Women)
    Intersex
    LEEP
    Mammograms
    Masturbation
    Men and Urinary Tract Infections
    Menopause
    Miscarriage
    Molluscum Contagiosum
    Outercourse
    Parenting
    Pelvic Exam
    PID
    Pre-Pregnancy Health
    Pregnancy Options
    Prenatal Care
    Pull-Out Method
    Scabies
    Sex
    Sexual Orientation
    Sexual Pleasure
    Spermicide
    Stages of Pregnancy
    Sterilization (Women)
    Syphilis
    Testicular Cancer
    Transgender
    Trich
    Urinary Tract Infection
    Vasectomy
    Yeast Infection

    Abortion
    Abortion Pill
    • Abortion Procedures

    – See more at: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/#sthash.UEp9Evyj.dpuf


  • What do WA State Fire Fees Pay For?

    What do WA State Fire Fees Pay For?

    I checked my Clallam County, WA State tax statement. Fire distribution $32.67, plus Fire Patrol fee $248.92 plus Fire Patrol County fee $2.00.
    This money (FIRE PATROL FEE) is collected by our county treasurer and remitted as, WA State Forest Fire Protection Assessment (FFPA) to the Washington State Department of Natural Resources and placed in the DNR general fund.

    WHAT ARE THESE OVER $250.00 A YEAR FIRE FEES PAYING FOR?
    WA State DNR Assistant Division Director of Fire Prevention Karen Arnold will be sending me the email answer, per our phone conversation.
    I’ll keep you posted

    ————————————————-
    DNR Karen Z Arnold email response

    The bottom line
    If you have additional questions please feel free to follow up either by e-mail or phone.

    ———————————————————–
    —– Original Message —–
    From: Arnold, Karen (DNR)
    To: phew@wavecable.com
    Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 2:59 PM
    Subject: Department of Natural Resources – Forest Fire Protection Assessment

    Good Afternoon,

    Thank you for the phone call and your inquiry around your family’s property Fire Patrol Fee or Forest Fire Protection Assessment (FFPA). If I recall in our conversation you say that you are a trustee to 800 ac in Clallam County and pay about $250/yr. I believe the RCW 76.04.610 should answer your questions regarding what DNR does with those monies.

    If you have additional questions please feel free to follow up either by e-mail or phone.

    Karen Z Arnold
    ADM, Fire Regulation and Technical Services
    Wildfire Division
    WA State Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
    Work: 360-902-1315
    Cell: 360-528-0450
    ——————————————————————————–
    As usual, the bottom line, our elected representatives passed a “TAXING ASSESSMENT” law and called it a FEE.

    RCW 76.04.610: Forest fire protection assessment.
    Effective date — 1993 c 36: “This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, OR SUPPORT OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND ITS EXISTING PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS, AND SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY [April 15, 1993].” [1993 c 36 § 3.]

    REGARDING MY QUESTIONS ON THIS ACT OF NECESSARY IMMEDIATE ASSESSMENT $$$$ ACT OF “OR SUPPORT” OF STATE GOVERNMENT.

    I received the following response.

    I believe the RCW 76.04.610 (full text below) should answer your questions regarding what DNR does with those monies.

    I READ THROUGH THE LEGALIZE “MUMBO JUMBO”, RESEARCH, AND DOCUMENT.
    THE USUAL… JUST ANOTHER “WHAT ELSE LAW”
    “WHAT ELSE?” WHO ELSE? DOES DNR USE THESE ASSESSED FIRE FEES FOR?

    ———————————————————————————–

    FOR THE PRIVATE LAND OWNER, THIS IS A LEGISLATED ACT OF FEE FI FOE FUM, AN ACT OF “OR ELSE” AND AN ACT OF PAY THE FEES “OR ELSE” PAY THE PENALTIES.

    Behind My Back | Fee Fie Foe Fum

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/26/fee-fie-foefum/

    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-foe-fum.

    If you have additional questions please feel free to follow up either by e-mail or phone.
    How much money did DNR collect for ASSESSED FIRE FEES in 2014?
    ————————————————————————————
    Back to the original question…
    WHAT DOES DNR USE THESE ASSESSED FIRE FEES FOR?
    This assessment SHALL be used in support of those rural fire districts assisting the department in fire protection services on forest lands.

    ——————————-
    THE DEPARTMENT SHALL PROVIDE SUCH PROTECTION

    ——————————————————
    FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER, THE DEPARTMENT MAY DIVIDE THE FOREST LANDS OF THE STATE, OR ANY PART THEREOF, INTO DISTRICTS, FOR FIRE PROTECTION AND ASSESSMENT PURPOSES, MAY CLASSIFY LANDS ACCORDING TO THE CHARACTER OF TIMBER PREVAILING, AND THE FIRE HAZARD EXISTING….

    ——————————————————-

    ADDING, “WHAT ELSE?” AND “WHO ELSE”?

    —————————————————

    COLLECTIONS SHALL BE APPLIED AGAINST EXPENSES INCURRED IN CARRYING OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, INCLUDING NECESSARY AND REASONABLE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS INCURRED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THESE PROVISIONS.

    THE DEPARTMENT MAY ALSO “EXPEND SUMS” COLLECTED FROM OWNERS OF FOREST LANDS OR RECEIVED “FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE FOR NECESSARY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF RCW 76.04.660.

    OR? TO SUPPORT OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND ITS EXISTING PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS

    GOOD GRIEF.. WHO KNEW?

    This section was APPROPRIATED from WILDFIRE PROTECTION to WILDFIRE PREVENTION

    During the 2011-2013 fiscal biennium
    THE FOREST FIRE PROTECTION ASSESSMENT ACCOUNT
    ” MAY BE APPROPRIATED”
    TO THE EVERGREEN STATE COLLEGE FOR ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE STATE’S MECHANISMS FOR FUNDING FIRE PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION ACTIVITIES.

    ———————————————————————————-

    PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE CHARGED FOR AND PAYING FOR PROTECTION?
    SO? HOW DID THE WILD FIRE PROTECTION FEES END UP IN STATE WILD FIRE PREVENTION?
    BY WHO’S APPROPRIATION?

    ——————————————————————————————–

    snippet from below…
    This section was adapted from “Developing a Cooperative Approach to WILDFIRE PROTECTION,” a publication of the National Wildland/Urban Interface FIRE PROTECTION Program

    SO HOW DID THE WILD FIRE PROTECTION FEES END UP IN STATE AND NATIONAL WILD FIRE PREVENTION? BY WHO’S APPROPRIATION?

    This section was ADAPTED FROM WILDFIRE PROTECTION to WILDFIRE PREVENTION

    —————————————————-

    Does this 101 page document plus RCW 76.04.610 answer your questions regarding what DNR does with those monies.

    ————————————————————
    Establishing Fire Prevention Education Cooperative …
    www.nwcg.gov/sites/…/cooppart.p…
    NATIONAL WILDFIRE COORDINATING GROUP
    Specialists and subject matter experts in the appropriate area. … this series is to improve and enhance wildfire prevention programs and to … 5.1 Fire Prevention Assessment Considerations . … “Cooperation is an innocuous term, but by all accounts it is …. private and public organizations, businesses, and, of course, the. Each Wildfire Prevention Guide has been developed by Fire Prevention Specialists and subject matter experts in the appropriate area. The goal of
    this series is to improve and enhance wildfire prevention programs and to facilitate the achievement of NWCG program goals. Special mention to the National Wildland-Urban Interface fire protection Program and members of the Pacific Northwest Fire Prevention Cooperatives in providing
    information to this guide.
    NWCG Wildfire Prevention Guide development:
    • Conducting School Programs (1996)
    • Event Management (1996)
    • Wildfire Prevention Marketing (1996)
    • Wildfire Prevention and the Media (1998)
    • Wildfire Prevention Strategies (1998)
    • Effective Wildfire Prevention Patrol (1998)
    • Recreation Area Fire Prevention (1999)
    • Fire Communication and Education (1999)
    • Fire Education Exhibits and Displays (1999)
    • Industrial Operations Fire Prevention Guide (1999)
    • Establishing Fire Prevention Education Cooperative Programs and Partnerships (1999
    ————————————————————————————-

    If you have additional questions, ON “WHAT ELSE” WA STATE FIRE FEES PAY FOR?
    please feel free to follow up either by e-mail or phone.
    Karen Z Arnold
    ADM, Fire Regulation and Technical Services
    Wildfire Division
    WA State Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
    Work: 360-902-1315
    Cell: 360-528-0450

    ——————————————————————————————-
    Emphasis added… For the understanding of a reasonable person,

    READ THESE LAWS

    RCW 76.04.600
    Owners to protect forests.
    EVERY OWNER OF FOREST LAND IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON SHALL FURNISH OR PROVIDE, during the season of the year when there is danger of forest fires, adequate protection against the spread of fire thereon or therefrom WHICH SHALL MEET WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE DEPARTMENT.
    [1986 c 100 § 34.]
    RCW 76.04.600: Owners to protect forests.
    apps.leg.wa.gov › … › Title 76 › Chapter 76.04
    Washington State Senate
    EVERY OWNER OF FOREST LAND IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON SHALL FURNISH OR PROVIDE, during the season of the year when there is danger of forest fires, adequate …
    ———————————————————————————–
    (3) Beginning January 1, 1991, under the administration and at the discretion of the department up to two hundred thousand dollars per year of THIS ASSESSMENT SHALL BE USED IN SUPPORT OF THOSE RURAL FIRE DISTRICTS ASSISTING THE DEPARTMENT IN FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES ON FOREST LANDS.

    ———————————————————-

    RCW 76.04.610: Forest fire protection assessment.
    apps.leg.wa.gov › … › Title 76 › Chapter 76.04
    Washington State Senate
    76.04.600 << 76.04.610 >> 76.04.620 … provide adequate fire protection as required by RCW 76.04.600, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL PROVIDE SUCH PROTECTION AND SHALL …
    (1)(a) If any owner of forest land within a forest protection zone neglects or fails to provide adequate fire protection as required by RCW 76.04.600, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL PROVIDE SUCH PROTECTION AND SHALL ANNUALLY IMPOSE the following assessments on each parcel of such land: (i) A flat fee assessment of seventeen dollars and fifty cents; and (ii) twenty-seven cents on each acre exceeding fifty acres.
    ————————————————————————-
    THE DEPARTMENT SHALL PROVIDE SUCH PROTECTION AND SHALL ANNUALLY IMPOSE

    —————————————————-
    Effective date — 1993 c 36: “THIS ACT IS NECESSARY FOR THE IMMEDIATE PRESERVATION OF THE PUBLIC PEACE, HEALTH, OR SAFETY, OR SUPPORT OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND ITS EXISTING PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS, AND SHALL TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY [APRIL 15, 1993].” [1993 C 36 § 3.]

    ——————————————————————
    (b) Assessors may, at their option, collect the assessment on tax exempt lands. If the assessor elects not to collect the assessment, the department may bill the landowner directly.

    (2) An owner who has paid assessments on two or more parcels, each containing fewer than fifty acres and each within the same county, may obtain the following refund:

    (a) If all the parcels together contain less than fifty acres, then the refund is equal to the flat fee assessments paid, reduced by the total of (i) seventeen dollars and (ii) the total of the amounts retained by the county from such assessments under subsection (5) of this section.

    (b) If all the parcels together contain fifty or more acres, then the refund is equal to the flat fee assessments paid, reduced by the total of (i) seventeen dollars, (ii) twenty-seven cents for each acre exceeding fifty acres, and (iii) the total of the amounts retained by the county from such assessments under subsection (5) of this section.

    Applications for refunds shall be submitted to the department on a form prescribed by the department and in the same year in which the assessments were paid. The department may not provide refunds to applicants who do not provide verification that all assessments and property taxes on the property have been paid. Applications may be made by mail.

    In addition to the procedures under this subsection, property owners with multiple parcels in a single county who qualify for a refund under this section may apply to the department on an application listing all the parcels owned in order to have the assessment computed on all parcels but billed to a single parcel. Property owners with the following number of parcels may apply to the department in the year indicated:

    Year Number of Parcels
    2002 10 or more parcels
    2003 8 or more parcels
    2004 and thereafter 6 or more parcels

    The department must compute the correct assessment and allocate one parcel in the county to use to collect the assessment. The county must then bill the forest fire protection assessment on that one allocated identified parcel. The landowner is responsible for notifying the department of any changes in parcel ownership.

    (3) Beginning January 1, 1991, under the administration and at the discretion of the department up to two hundred thousand dollars per year of this assessment shall be used in support of those rural fire districts assisting the department in fire protection services on forest lands.

    (4) FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER, THE DEPARTMENT MAY DIVIDE THE FOREST LANDS OF THE STATE, OR ANY PART THEREOF, INTO DISTRICTS, FOR FIRE PROTECTION AND ASSESSMENT PURPOSES, MAY CLASSIFY LANDS ACCORDING TO THE CHARACTER OF TIMBER PREVAILING, AND THE FIRE HAZARD EXISTING, and place unprotected lands under the administration of the proper district. Amounts paid or contracted to be paid by the department for protection of forest lands from funds at its disposal shall be a lien upon the property protected, unless reimbursed by the owner within ten days after October 1st of the year in which they were incurred. The department shall be prepared to make statement thereof, upon request, to a forest owner whose own protection has not been previously approved as to its adequacy, the department shall report the same to the assessor of the county in which the property is situated. The assessor shall extend the amounts upon the tax rolls covering the property, and upon authorization from the department shall levy the forest protection assessment against the amounts of unimproved land as shown in each ownership on the county assessor’s records.
    The assessor may then segregate on the records to provide that the improved land and improvements thereon carry the millage levy designed to support the rural fire protection districts as provided for in RCW 52.16.170.
    RCW 52.16.170 – Access Washington
    apps.leg.wa.gov › … › Title 52 › Chapter 52.16
    Washington State Senate
    In the event that lands lie within both a fire protection district and a forest protection assessment area they shall be taxed and assessed as follows: (1) If the lands …
    —————————————————————————-

    (5) The amounts assessed shall be collected at the time, in the same manner, by the same procedure, and with the same penalties attached that general state and county taxes on the same property are collected, except that errors in assessments may be corrected at any time by the department certifying them to the treasurer of the county in which the land involved is situated. Assessments shall be known and designated as assessments of the year in which the amounts became reimbursable. Upon the collection of assessments the county treasurer shall place fifty cents of the total assessments paid on a parcel FOR FIRE PROTECTION
    INTO THE COUNTY CURRENT EXPENSE FUND TO DEFRAY THE COSTS OF LISTING, BILLING, AND COLLECTING THESE ASSESSMENTS.
    The treasurer shall then transmit the balance to the department.

    Collections shall be applied against expenses incurred in carrying out the provisions of this section, INCLUDING NECESSARY AND REASONABLE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS INCURRED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THESE PROVISIONS.

    The department may also expend sums collected from owners of forest lands or received FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE FOR NECESSARY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF RCW 76.04.660.

    (6) When land against which forest protection assessments are outstanding is acquired for delinquent taxes and sold at public auction, the state shall have a prior lien on the proceeds of sale over and above the amount necessary to satisfy the county’s delinquent tax judgment. The county treasurer, in case the proceeds of sale exceed the amount of the delinquent tax judgment, shall immediately remit to the department the amount of the outstanding forest protection assessments.

    (7) ALL NONFEDERAL PUBLIC BODIES OWNING OR ADMINISTERING FOREST LAND included in a forest protection zone SHALL PAY THE FOREST PROTECTION ASSESSMENTS provided in this section and THE SPECIAL FOREST FIRE SUPPRESSION account assessments under RCW 76.04.630.

    The forest protection assessments and special forest fire suppression account assessments shall be payable BY NONFEDERAL PUBLIC BODIES from available funds within thirty days following receipt of the written notice from the department which is given after October 1st of the year in which the protection was provided. Unpaid assessments are not a lien against the NONFEDERAL PUBLICLY OWNED LAND but shall constitute a debt by the NONFEDERAL PUBLIC BODY to the department and are subject to interest charges at the legal rate.

    During the 2011-2013 fiscal biennium

    the FOREST FIRE PROTECTION ASSESSMENT ACCOUNT may be APPROPRIATED to THE EVERGREEN STATE COLLEGE for analysis and recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the state’s mechanisms for funding fire prevention and suppression activities.

    (8) A public body, having failed to previously pay the forest protection assessments required of it by this section, which fails to suppress a fire on or originating from forest lands owned or administered by it, is liable for the costs of suppression incurred by the department or its agent and is not entitled to reimbursement of costs incurred by the public body in the suppression activities.

    (9) The department may adopt rules to implement this section, including, but not limited to, rules on levying and collecting forest protection assessments.
    [2012 2nd sp.s. c 7 § 922; 2007 c 110 § 1; 2004 c 216 § 1; 2001 c 279 § 2; 1993 c 36 § 1; 1989 c 362 § 1; 1988 c 273 § 3; 1986 c 100 § 35.]
    Notes:
    Effective date — 2012 2nd sp.s. c 7: See note following RCW 2.68.020.
    Effective date — 1993 c 36: “This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect immediately [April 15, 1993].” [1993 c 36 § 3.]


  • WA State Parks Buy Now Discover Later

    WA State Parks Buy Now Discover Later

    BUY THE DISCOVER PASS NOW DISCOVER LATER

    49 PAGES OF THINGS YOU CAN AND CAN’T DO AT WA STATE PARKS

    park rules publication. – Washington State Parks and …

    This is the 49 page document (full list of WAC’s below)

    www.parks.wa.gov/DocumentCenter/…/40

    Washington State Park System

    Aug 13, 2013 – PARK RULES. Regulations Governing the. Public Use of Washington State Parks. Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. NOTE …

    ————————————————————————————

    BUY NOW DISCOVER LATER

    Buy Now | Discover Pass, WA – Official Website

    discoverpass.wa.gov/133/Buy-Now

    The Discover Pass allows you to enjoy millions of acres of Washington state-managed recreation lands – including state parks, water-access points, heritage …

    ————————————————————————

    BUY NOW DISCOVER LATER  THE DISCOVER PASS  PARKING TICKETS 

    THE DISCOVER PASS  PARKING TICKETS  that are issued by Washington State Parks. … You displayed the wrong pass. … You improperly filled out the Discover Pass. Examples … Discover Pass parking tickets are issued by Washington State Parks. … An annual “Discover Pass “ is a white pass mounted on a yellow hanger, with “Discover … YOU DISPLAYED THE WRONG PASS. … YOU IMPROPERLY FILLED OUT THE DISCOVER PASS. AND, FOR IMPROPER DISPLAY OF THE PASS.

    IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE YOU DISPLAYED THE WRONG PASS

    The following are NOT valid at WA State Parks or for DNR.

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

    2. YOU IMPROPERLY FILLED OUT THE DISCOVER PASS. Examples include a, failure to fill in license plate numbers or a wrong license plate number on the pass; a   crossed out license plate number, or more than two plate numbers.

    ———————————————-

    BUY NOW DISCOVER LATER  WAC 352-32-310 PENALTIES.

    THE PENALTY FOR “NOT HAVING” A DISCOVER PASS IS $99.00 DOLLARS.

    HOWEVER, THE FINE MAY BE REDUCED TO $59.00 DOLLARS IF AN INDIVIDUAL PROVIDES PROOF OF PURCHASE of the Discover Pass to the court within 15 days after the notice of violation is written.

    THE PENALTY FOR “HAVING” A DISCOVER PASS  IS ONLY $59.00

    YOU BOUGHT THE DISCOVERY PASS , YOU’VE GOT THE DISCOVERY PASS, YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE GOOD TO GO DISCOVER WA STATE PARKS?

    My sister and my daughter both got a $99.00 ticket on the same day, in two different WA State Parks, FOR IMPROPER DISPLAY OF THE PASS. 

    MY SISTER’S BOUGHT A $10.00 DAY PASS.

    MY SISTER WAS ISSUED A  $99.00 TICKET 

    AFTER PROVIDING PROOF OF THEIR DISCOVER PASS

    MY SISTER’S  TICKET  AND MY DAUGHTERS  TICKETS WERE REDUCED TO $59.00

    MY SISTER’S  TOTAL COST $69.00 FOR A TWO HOUR “DISCOVER” WALK  ON A PUBLIC BEACH

    INDEED  TRUE STORIES  OF,  BUY NOW DISCOVER LATER 

    —————————————————————————————

    Hmmm….WHAT’S THIS? YOU DO NOT NEED A PASS?

    If you just want to drive through state recreation lands managed by DNR and WDFW AND YOU DO NOT LEAVE YOUR VEHICLE, you do not need a pass.

    BUY NOW DISCOVER LATER

    YOU GOT A TICKET BECAUSE YOU LEFT YOUR VEHICLE TO GO POTTY?

    IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE

    THE BOTTOM LINE “DON’T GET CAUGHT WITH YOUR PANTS DOWN”

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

    PLEASE OBSERVE ALL 49 PAGES OF  WASHINGTON STATE PARK RULES  AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE PUBLIC USE OF WASHINGTON STATE PARKS SO THAT ALL PARK VISITORS MAY ENJOY THEIR VISIT. (complete list WAC’s below)

     —————————————————————————————-

    EVEN IF YOU’VE GOT A DISCOVERY PASS

    PAID FOR THE DISCOVERY PASS

    YOU REGISTERED AT THE GATE

    AND, THEY HAVE YOUR LICENSE PLATE NUMBER

    BETTER READ  THE COMPLETE  49 PAGES OF  WASHINGTON STATE PARK RULES  AND REGULATIONS, 49 PAGES OF THINGS YOU CAN AND CAN’T DO AT WA STATE PARKS, GOVERNING THE PUBLIC USE OF WASHINGTON STATE PARKS

    SO YOU DON’T GET WAC’D WITH A  TICKET

    park rules publication. – Washington State Parks and …

    Chapter 352-32 WAC

    PUBLIC USE OF STATE PARK AREAS

    WAC

    352-32-010 Definitions.

    352-32-01001 Feeding wildlife.

    352-32-011 Dress standards.

    352-32-030 Camping.

    352-32-037 Environmental learning centers (ELCs).

    352-32-040 Picnicking.

    352-32-045 Reservations for use of designated group facilities.

    352-32-047 Special recreation event permit.

    352-32-050 Park periods.

    352-32-053 Park capacities.

    352-32-056 Peace and quiet.

    352-32-057 Disturbances.

    352-32-060 Pets.

    352-32-070 Use of horses, llamas, sled dogs or similar animals for

    recreation.

    352-32-075 Use of nonmotorized cycles or similar devices.

    352-32-080 Swimming.

    352-32-085 Technical rock climbing.

    352-32-090 Games or activities.

    352-32-095 Squak Mountain State Park—Natural area—Prohibited

    uses.

    352-32-100 Disrobing.

    352-32-110 Tents, etc., on beaches.

    352-32-120 Firearms.

    352-32-121 Other weapons.

    352-32-125 Fires and campfires.

    352-32-130 Aircraft.

    352-32-140 Fireworks.

    352-32-150 Fishing.

    352-32-15001 Little Spokane River natural area—Prohibited uses.

    352-32-155 Lakes located wholly within state parks boundar-

    ies—Internal combustion engines prohibited.

    352-32-157 Lakes located partially within state park boundar-

    ies—Internal combustion engines prohibited.

    352-32-165 Public assemblies, meetings.

    352-32-170 Rubbish.

    352-32-175 Water.

    352-32-180 Sanitation.

    352-32-195 Solicitation.

    352-32-200 Expulsion from state park areas.

    352-32-210 Consumption of alcohol in state park areas.

    352-32-215 Compliance with signs.

    352-32-220 Intoxication in state park areas.

    352-32-230 Food and beverage containers on swimming beaches.

    352-32-235 Use of metal detectors in state parks.

    352-32-237 Geocache.

    352-32-240 Nondiscrimination certification.

    352-32-250 Standard fees charged.

    352-32-25001 Fort Worden reservations and fees.

    352-32-251 Limited income senior citizen, disability, and disabled

    veteran passes.

    352-32-252 Off-season senior citizen pass—Fee.

    352-32-253 Foster parent program.

    352-32-255 Self-registration.

    352-32-260 Sno-park display.

    352-32-270 Sno-park permit—Fees.

    352-32-280 Applicability of standard fees.

    352-32-285 Applicability of standard fees to volunteers in parks.

    352-32-290 Wood debris collection.

    352-32-295 Land exchange—Fee.

    352-32-300 Easement, franchise, license, and special use permit

    applications and fees.

    352-32-310 Penalties.

    352-32-320 Severability.

    352-32-330 Commercial recreation providers—Permits.

    352-32-340 Approval of community-based park improve-

    ments—Policies.

    352-32-350 Seaweed harvest.

    ——————————————————————

    THE BOTTOM LINE “DON’T GET CAUGHT WITH YOUR PANTS DOWN”

    ———————————————

    Another chapter in the book of revelations by Pearl Revere

    (2) WA Parks-People Hate the Discover Pass – Behind My …

    www.behindmyback.org/…/2-wa-parks-peoplehate-the-discoverpass/

    Aug 20, 2014 – PEOPLE HATE THE DISCOVER PASS “TICKETS” Discover Pass parking tickets are issued by Washington State Parks. … You displayed the …

    —————————————————————

    Still have questions? Visit our frequently asked questions or call the Discover Pass customer service office at (866) 320-9933.

     


  • WA State Human Environment

    The Human Environment In WA State

    This is WA State Law RCW 77.12.154  These “STATE  EMPLOYEES” may enter upon “ANY LAND” or waters and remain there while performing their duties WITHOUT LIABILITY FOR TRESPASS.

    Presumed by,  WA State Attorney Generals  office, to be Constitutional?

    THESE “STATE  EMPLOYEES” MAY ENTER UPON YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY, “ANY LAND”  IN WA STATE, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION  WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE AND WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT.

    ————————————————————————————–

    THIS IS THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT under WA State Law RCW 77.12.154 .

    The Government has taken the position that they can do whatever they want, where ever they want and whenever they want, without Constitutional due process of law.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    Who Knew? About this is WA State Law RCW 77.12.154

    It took me two months, with the help of an attorney,  to find this  WA State Law, it was buried under the  “Right of entry”  Aircraft operated by department.

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

    DISBELIEF AND DENIAL  IS THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT IN WA STATE.

    When I told American Citizens about the law, they wouldn’t believe me. They said

    They can’t do that on my “PRIVATE PROPERTY”  I have Constitutional Rights. the government can’t do that without my permission, without probable cause and without a search warrant.

     —————————————————————————————–

     You want to bet the government can’t do it on your private property?

    I have the documentation of hundreds of these trespass violations on Lake Sutherland private property.

    THESE “STATE  EMPLOYEES” DID ENTER UPON MY PRIVATE PROPERTY, “MY LAND”  IN CLALLAM COUNTY, WA STATE, WITHOUT ANY DUE PROCESS OF LAW, WITHOUT MY PERMISSION  WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE AND WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRENT.

    In fact it is documented that FROM APRIL 21, 2010   TO FEB. 5, 2011 WDFW did knowingly trespass on every piece of private property AROUND LAKE SUTHERLAND, And on every piece of private property from Lake Sutherland down and on both sides of Indian Creek to the Elwha River.,without due process of law, without permission, without probable cause and without a search warrant.

    ————————————————————————-

    THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT IN WA STATE?

    Indeed, The government has  been TRESPASSING  on private land and they are going to keep TRESPASSING on private land, and keep TRESPASSING on private land until “We the People” demanded Constitutional Due Process.

    “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

     ——————————————————————————————-

    This is the PRESUMED CONSTITUTIONAL law of the LAND in WA STATE.
    Goggle it for yourself… CHAPTER 77.12 RCW POWERS AND DUTIES

     THE 2011 Response from WA State Attorney General’s office
    ANY RCW, LAW PASSED BY WA STATE LEGISLATORS IS PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL

    —————————————————————————————

    UNDER RCW 77.12.154  THIS IS THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT IN WA STATE.

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

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

    SHE OWNS A GUN…

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

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

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

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

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

    WHAT WILL YOU DO?

    ———————————————————————————————–

    THIS IS PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL?

    WA STATE EMPLOYEES? that do not wear a uniform? do not identify themselves? use your private road for access,  go sniffing  around in their official capacity, inspecting your 20 acres of private property, and  invading your privacy  in your own  back yard?

    This is the PRESUMED law of the land in WA STATE?

    —————————————————————————————-

    PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL?

    RCW 77.12.154
    Right of entry —
    Aircraft operated by department.
    The director, fish and wildlife officers, ex officio fish and wildlife officers, and department employees may enter upon ANY LAND or waters and remain there while performing their duties without liability for trespass.

    It is lawful for aircraft operated by the department to land and take off from the beaches or waters of the state.
    [1998 c 190 § 71; 1983 1st ex.s. c 46 § 19; 1955 c 12 § 75.08.160. Prior: 1949 c 112 § 13; Rem. Supp. 1949 § 5780-212. Formerly RCW 75.08.160.]
    —————————————————————————————-
    WA State law RCW77.12.154
    WDFW employees may enter upon ANY LAND or waters and remain there while performing their duties without liability for trespass.

    —————————————————————————

    THE 2011 Response from WA State Attorney General’s office
    ANY RCW LAW PASSED BY WA STATE LEGISLATORS IS PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL

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

    And, When “THEY” Came  to Lake Sutherland, Clallam County, in WA State.

    Read the full text, complete chronological documentation of government trespass here.

    Presumed to be Constitutional?

    Posted on by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    This is the documented chronological order of the CLALLAM COUNTY TRESPASS

    PART (1)  FROM APRIL 21, 2010   TO FEB. 5, 2011

    AND WHAT I DID

    DOCUMENT… DOCUMENT… DOCUMENT…


  • SMP What has Your County got to Lose?

    SMP What has Your  County got to Lose?

    For the record this is my Clallam County

    SMP Public Comment

    What has Clallam County got to lose?

    RCW 90.58.290

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

    [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 29.]

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

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

    CLALLAM COUNTY HAS A TAX BASIS OF 11%

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

    Ad Valorem Tax Dilemma?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. DEVALUATE THE REAL ESTATE WITH NO WATER

    2. RAISE THE VALUATION OF REAL ESTATE WITH WATER

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

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

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

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

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

    Highest and best use

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ————————————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | High, Dry and Destitute

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

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

    —————————————————————————————

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

    Ad Valorem Tax Dilemma?

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

    ——————————————————————————–

     

     

     

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

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

    Real estate appraisal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Types of value

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     


  • SMP Public Comment #161

    SMP Public Comment #161

    To Clallam County Planning Commission

    And, Commissioners’ McEntire,  Chapman and Peach

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

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

    summaries of  SMP Public Meetings during the entire SMP process of

    the Nov. 2014 proposed SMP Update Draft

     

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————–

    FAILURE  TO POST AND RESPOND TO SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

    To: Merrill, Hannah ; Gray, Steve

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

    Subject: WHAT IS NO NET LOSS WORKGROUP?

    —————————————————————————-

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT #440 posted 10/4/13

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

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

    SMP UPDATE EXCLUSION AND OMISSION

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

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

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

    AND,  Failure to  ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION

    Sent: Tuesday,  8:48 AM

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

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

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

    I should/could  QUIT.

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

    Pearl Rains Hewett

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

    FAILURE?

    Chapter 42.30 RCW

    OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT

    This is the Legislative declaration on RCW 42.30.010

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

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

    [1971 ex.s. c 250 § 1.]

    Notes:

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

     

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

    RCW 90.58.130

    Involvement of all persons and entities having interest means.

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

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

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

    [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 13.]

    ——————————————————————

    Shoreline Master Program Update

    FAILURE?  THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGY

    March 2010 Revised March 2011

    4.1 Phase I ‐ Public Participation Program

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

    AND KEEP A RECORD OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED.

    —————————————————————————-

    FAILURE?

    UNPOSTED SMP COMMENTS

    Citizens Advisory Committee on the update of the SMP

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: sgray@co.clallam.wa.us

    Cc: earnest spees

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

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

    Steve

    Re: Clallam County Shoreline Management Plan 1976

    I read the 1976 SMP

    My biggest concern would be Page 8 Section 8.

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

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

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

     

    Citizens Advisory Committee 2011

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

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

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

    With 60 percent of Clallam County under Private ownership;

    I ask you?

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

    Pearl Rains Hewett PR-Trustee

    George C. Rains Sr. Trust

    ————————————————————————–

    THIS IS POSTED #50 SMP PUBLIC COMMENT

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

    summary of a Public Meeting

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: SMP@co.clallam.wa.us

    Cc: Gray, Steve

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

    Subject: ESA Adolfson’s focus study groups

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ————————————————————————————–

     UNPOSTED SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

     —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Gray, Steve

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

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

    Steve,

    Jim Kramer asked for  a copy of this WAC.

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

    Has a direct link for advisory comments been established?

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————————–

    FAILURE TO POST  SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Lear, Cathy

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

    Subject: RCW’S FOR PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Cathy and Margaret,

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

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

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Advisory Committee Member

    PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Protection of single family residences

    RCW 90.58.100

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

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

     Unintentionally created “Wetlands”

    RCW 90.58.030

    Definitions and concepts.

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

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

    LAKE SUTHERLAND

     

    RCW 90.24.010Petition to regulate flow — Order — Exceptions.

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

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

    Notes:

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

     

     

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees ; Jo Anne Estes

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

    Subject: STATE DIRECTIVE BY WAC 173-26-191

    All,

    I find this unacceptable.

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

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

    FYI

    Pearl

    WAC 173-26-191

    Agency filings affecting this section

    Master program contents.

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

     ——————————————————————-

     FAILURE TO POST SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: earnest spees

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

    Cc: Karl Spees ; pearl hewett ; Kaj Ahlburg

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

    Subject: Shoreline Advisory Committee Minutes.

     

    Please forward to:

    Margaret Clancy & Jim Kramer

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

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

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

    Karl Spees – Representative of the CAPR

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————-

    FAILURE TO POST SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Jo Anne Estes ; earnest spees

    Cc: Gray, Steve

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

    Subject: Fw: Shoreline Advisory Committee Minutes.

    JoAnne,

    See below,

    I agree with Karl

    I have emailed comments to Cathy Lear and Margaret Clancy.

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

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

    We have no link to an Advisory Committee comment site.

    We have no link to a public comment site.

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

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

    Pearl

    Advisory Committee Member

    ————————————————————————————————

    As Members of the Clallam County Shoreline Advisory Committee.

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

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees ; pat tenhulzen ; Jo Anne Estes

    Cc: marv chastain

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

    Subject: All SMP public comments PRIVATE?

    All

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

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

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

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

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

     Perhaps we could use WA State Full Disclosure law?

    Pearl

    Advisory Committee Member

    ———————————————————————-

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

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

    I had his email address

    UNPOSTED SMP COMMENT

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: jim jones

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

    Subject: TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS

    1. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

    Jim,

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

    As Commissioner Doherty  mentioned last night, times are changing.

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

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

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

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

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

    I will  provide only documented information to you.

    I am passionate about private property and Constitutional rights.

    1. TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS

    Statistics taken from

    Clallam County future land use map

    79.2 % of Clallam County is PUBLIC LAND

    17.1% of Clallam County is PRIVATE PROPERTY

    3.7% other

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

    are available for PUBLIC ACCESS.

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

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

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

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    As Trustee of the George C. Rains Trust

    Private property owner

    Advisory Committee Member

    ————————————————————–

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

    I had his email address

    ANOTHER UN-POSTED SMP COMMENT

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: jim jones

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

    Subject: WA RCW’S THAT PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS

    Jim,

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

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

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

    3. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE

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

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

    LAKE SUTHERLAND

    RCW 90.24.010

    Petition to regulate flow — Order — Exceptions.

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

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

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

    PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY

    Protection of single family residences

    RCW 90.58.100

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

    PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION

     Unintentionally created “Wetlands”

    RCW 90.58.030

    Definitions and concepts.

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

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    AS Trustee of the George C. Rains Trust

    Private property owner

    Advisory Committee member

    —————————————————————————

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

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

    Subject: Public Meeting on SMP tomorrow

    Hello, everyone~

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

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

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

    Thanks for your consideration.

    Jo Anne Estes

    An Advisory Committee member

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: earnest spees

    To: Karl Spees

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Please attend and participate.

    Karl Spees – Pres CAPR 13

    An Advisory Committee member

    —————————————————————————

    FAILURE TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES  SMP Advisory Committee members

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: earnest spees

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

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

    Yes, I will be there.

    How did you find out?

    They sure as hell didn’t let me know!

    imagine that?

    Pearl

    An Advisory Committee member

     ————————————————————–

    WE WERE INVITED TO BE ON THE Shoreline Advisory Committee?

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

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

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

    summary of a Public Meeting

    —– Original Message —–

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

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

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


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

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

    UNPOSTED SMP   PUBLIC COMMENTS on NO NET LOSS

     —– Original Message —–

    From: Jo Anne Estes

    To: Merrill, Hannah ; Gray, Steve

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

    Subject: What is No Net Loss Workgroup?

    Hello Hannah and Steve:

    I saw this Notice on the Clallam County Website:

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

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

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

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

    Thanks very much.  Have a great weekend!

    Jo Anne Estes

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

    As Members of the Clallam County Shoreline Advisory Committee.

    WE WERE NOT RECEIVING ANY RESPONSES FROM

    Sheila Roark Miller – DCD Director 2010 ; Steve Gray

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

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Jo Anne Estes

    Cc: earnest spees

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

    Subject: Re: What is No Net Loss Workgroup?

    Jo Anne,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Are we just, the required by LAW invited?

     Does anything we do have any effect on the outcome?

     Are our comments even given to the Appointed 9?

    FYI

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

    Keep up the good work,

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Disappointed member of the Clallam County Invited SMP

    Update NOT Citizens Advisory Committee.

    ———————————————————————–

    The bottom line

    AND,  Failure to  ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION

    Sent: Tuesday,  8:48 AM 2011

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

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

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

    I should/could  QUIT.

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

    Pearl Rains Hewett

     


  • AG Request on Instream Flow

    NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OPINION  (complete text below)

     QUESTION(S):

    Does RCW 90.82.080 obligate the Department of Ecology to undertake rulemaking to amend an instream flow rule if a LOCAL PLANNING UNIT VOTES TO RECOMMEND AMENDMENTS TO AN EXISTING INSTREAM FLOW RULE? 

    Obligate,  by definition, bind or compel (someone), especially legally or morally.

    The full text of is below, RCW 98.82.080 INSTREAM FLOW COMPONENT –  RULES- REPORT

    —————————————————————————————————

    SECTION V – ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES  THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD

    snippet 3.The Attorneys General of Washington State is elected by popular vote. As the chief attorney for the state, the Attorneys General advises the Governor and state agencies on legal matters, but operates independently of the Governor. Local County and City prosecutors operate independently of the Attorney General’s office.

    ——————————————————————————-

    This is my comment

    It’s not complicated, it’s just another WA State legal conundrum on ECOLOGY’S WATER RULES

    And, it appears to me, that the Attorney General is on a fishing expedition so he can advise the Governor and state agencies on legal matters (like lawsuits)

    ———————————————————————————————–

     THE WORDING IN RCW 90.82.080 IS CONFUSING.

     (it only address’s the “SHALL NOT BE” modified)

    THE QUESTION FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL  IS  ON “SHALL  BE” obligated, to be MODIFIED UNDER THIS CHAPTER.

    THE INSTREAMFLOW, ON THE SKAGIT and DUNGENESS RIVERS, HAS ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED BY RULE.

     IS THE  The AG’s question POINTLESS? …  UNTIL WHEN? SOME  LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT by a recorded unanimous vote “REQUEST” the department TO MODIFY THOSE FLOWS, the minimum instream flows

    Then legal question then  becomes,

    Does the DOE have the legal authority UNDER THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT POLICY, to “DENY THE REQUEST” of THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT, TO MODIFY THOSE FLOWS?

    IF THE  DOE is “NOT” legally AUTHORIZED,UNDER THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT POLICY,  to “DENY THE REQUEST” of THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT.

    Then, yes, under the terms and conditions of RCW 90.82.080 DOE  should be obligated to conduct rulemaking to address the vote.

     And, the DOE is obligated to conduct rulemaking to address the vote.

      ——————————————————————————————-

      ” IF” the members of LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES REQUEST THE PLANNING UNIT to modify instream flows and unanimous approval of the decision to modify such flow IS  ACHIEVED, THEN THE INSTREAM FLOWS SHALL BE MODIFIED UNDER THIS SECTION;

    THE is DOE obligate to conduct rulemaking to address the vote.

     ———————————————————————-

    The legal question is still,

    Does the DOE have the legal authority UNDER THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT POLICY, to “DENY THE REQUEST” of THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT, TO MODIFY THOSE FLOWS?

     IF THE  DOE is “NOT” legally AUTHORIZED UNDER THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT POLICY,  to “DENY THE REQUEST” of THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT.

     Then, yes, under the terms and conditions of RCW 90.82.080 DOE  should be obligated to conduct rulemaking to address the vote.

     And, the DOE is obligated to conduct rulemaking to address the vote.

    ——————————————————————————————-

     IF THE  DOE is “NOT” legally AUTHORIZED  to “DENY THE REQUEST” ?

     WHO IS LEGALLY AUTHORIZED AND BOUND  UNDER THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT POLICY,  TO DENY THE TRIBAL REQUEST?

    Washington State/Tribal Government-to-Government Implementation Guidelines

    SECTION V – ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES,  snippet

    2. State Agency Directors: THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD calls for each state agency to develop a plan to implement the government-to-government policy. “Each agency will establish a documented plan of accountability and may establish more detailed implementation procedures in subsequent agreements between tribes and the particular agency.” Some agency directors report directly to the Governor’s office, while some report to an appointed board or commission.

    3. Attorneys General Office: The Attorneys General of Washington State is elected by popular vote. As the chief attorney for the state, the Attorneys General advises the Governor and state agencies on legal matters, but operates independently of the Governor. Local County and City prosecutors operate independently of the Attorney General’s office.

     ———————————————————————————————-

    complete text of


     NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OPINION

    QUESTION(S):

    Does RCW 90.82.080 obligate the Department of Ecology to undertake rulemaking to amend an instream flow rule if a LOCAL PLANNING UNIT VOTES TO RECOMMEND AMENDMENTS TO AN EXISTING INSTREAM FLOW RULE? 


                                       WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL

    The Washington Attorney General issues formal published opinions in response to requests by the heads of state agencies, state legislators, and county prosecuting attorneys.  When it appears that individuals outside the Attorney General’s Office have information or expertise that will assist in the preparation of a particular opinion, a summary of that opinion request will be published in the state register.  If you are interested in commenting on this opinion request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office of your interest by March 11, 2015.  This is not the due date by which comments must be received.  However, if you do not notify the Attorney General’s Office of your interest in commenting on this opinion request by this date, the opinion may be issued before your comments have been received.  You may notify the Attorney General’s Office of your intention to comment by e-mail to jeff.even@atg.wa.gov or by writing to the Office of the Attorney General, Solicitor General Division, Attention Jeff Even, Deputy Solicitor General, PO Box 40100, Olympia, Washington 98504-0100.  When you notify the office of your intention to comment, you may be provided with a copy of the opinion request in which you are interested, information about the Attorney General’s Opinion process, information on how to submit your comments, and a due date by which your comments must be received to ensure that they are fully considered.

    The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request(s):

                                                      Opinion Docket No. 15-02-03-Ericksen 

    Request by Doug Ericksen, Senator, District 42

    QUESTION(S):

    Does RCW 90.82.080 obligate the Department of Ecology to undertake rulemaking to amend an instream flow rule if a local planning unit votes to recommend amendments to an existing instream flow rule? 

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

    COMPLETE TEXT OF RCW 98.82.080

    INSTREAM FLOW COMPONENT –  RULES- REPORT

    (1)(a) If the initiating governments choose, by majority vote, to include an instream flow component, it shall be accomplished in the following manner:

    THE HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY RULE

    (i) If minimum instream flows HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED BY RULE for a stream within the management area,

    “UNLESS” the members of the LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT by a recorded unanimous vote REQUEST the department TO MODIFY THOSE FLOWS, the minimum instream flows

    SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED UNDER THIS CHAPTER.

    ” IF” the members of LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES REQUEST THE PLANNING UNIT to modify instream flows

    and unanimous approval of the decision to modify such flow IS NOT ACHIEVED, THEN THE INSTREAM FLOWS

    SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED UNDER THIS SECTION;

    —————————————————————————–

    THIS SECTION OF RCW 90.82.080 DOES NOT APPLY TO THE  NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OPINION

    QUESTION(S):

    Does RCW 90.82.080 obligate the Department of Ecology to undertake rulemaking to amend an instream flow rule if a LOCAL PLANNING UNIT VOTES TO RECOMMEND AMENDMENTS TO AN EXISTING INSTREAM FLOW RULE? 

    (But it is VERY interesting read)

    THE HAVE NOT BEEN ADOPTED BY minimum streamflows RULE

    (ii) If minimum streamflows HAVE NOT been adopted by rule for a stream within the management area, setting the minimum instream flows

    SHALL BE A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING UNIT.

    The department must attempt to achieve consensus and approval among the members of the planning unit regarding the minimum flows to be adopted by the department.

    APPROVAL IS ACHIEVED IF ALL GOVERNMENT MEMBERS AND TRIBES THAT HAVE BEEN INVITED AND ACCEPTED on the planning unit present for a recorded vote UNANIMOUSLY VOTE TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS,

    AND

     ALL NONGOVERNMENTAL MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING UNIT PRESENT FOR THE RECORDED VOTE, “BY A MAJORITY”, VOTE TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS.

    (b) The department shall undertake rule making to adopt flows under (a) of this subsection. The department MAY adopt the rules either by the regular rules adoption process provided in chapter 34.05 RCW, the expedited rules adoption process as set forth in RCW 34.05.353,

    OR THROUGH A RULES ADOPTION PROCESS THAT USES PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NOTICE PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE.

     Such rules do not constitute significant legislative rules as defined in RCW 34.05.328,

    and do not require the preparation of small business economic impact statements.

    (c) If approval is not achieved within four years of the date the planning unit first receives funds from the department for conducting watershed assessments under RCW 90.82.040,

    the department may promptly initiate rule making under chapter 34.05 RCW to establish flows for those streams and shall have two additional years to establish the instream flows for those streams for which approval is not achieved.

    (2)(a) Notwithstanding RCW 90.03.345, minimum instream flows set under this section for rivers or streams that do not have existing minimum instream flow levels set by rule of the department shall have a priority date of two years after funding is first received from the department under RCW 90.82.040, unless determined otherwise by a unanimous vote of the members of the planning unit but in no instance may it be later than the effective date of the rule adopting such flow.

    (b) Any increase to an existing minimum instream flow set by rule of the department shall have a priority date of two years after funding is first received for planning in the WRIA or multi-WRIA area from the department under RCW 90.82.040 and the priority date of the portion of the minimum instream flow previously established by rule shall retain its priority date as established under RCW 90.03.345.

    (c) Any existing minimum instream flow set by rule of the department that is reduced shall retain its original date of priority as established by RCW 90.03.345 for the revised amount of the minimum instream flow level.

    (3) Before setting minimum instream flows under this section, the department shall engage in government-to-government consultation with affected tribes in the management area regarding the setting of such flows.

    (4) Nothing in this chapter either: (a) Affects the department’s authority to establish flow requirements or other conditions under RCW 90.48.260 or the federal clean water act (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et seq.) for the licensing or relicensing of a hydroelectric power project under the federal power act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 791 et seq.); or (b) affects or impairs existing instream flow requirements and other conditions in a current license for a hydroelectric power project licensed under the federal power act.

    (5) If the planning unit is unable to obtain unanimity under subsection (1) of this section, the department MAY adopt rules setting such flows.

    (6) The department shall report annually to the appropriate legislative standing committees on the progress of instream flows being set under this chapter, as well as progress toward setting instream flows in those watersheds not being planned under this chapter. The report shall be made by December 1, 2003, and by December 1st of each subsequent year.

    [2003 1st sp.s. c 4 § 4; 1998 c 247 § 4.]

    Notes:

         Findings — 2003 1st sp.s. c 4: See note following RCW 90.82.040.

     


  • Who’s Winning the “POT” War?

    Who’s Winning the “POT” War?

    What WAR?

    We won, “RECREATIONAL POT IS LEGAL”

    OK, so Let’s reword it, Who’s Winning the War on “POT” Issues?

    THE LOCAL Issues? on the “POT”  War? (as an example)

    Let’s say, I  voted for initiative 502, I voted and approved WA State recreational pot businesses.

    THE LOCAL ISSUE IS,  “YES BUT,  NOT IN MY BACK YARD”

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

    I  am sending an email  (1407 words) short form of researched and documented information to offer guidance to our elected Clallam County representatives and members of the Planning Commission.

    AND, for any other city, town or county in WA State that is being faced with the same LOCAL POT ISSUES.

    ————————————————————————————————–

    Aug 29, 2014 – A Pierce County judge Friday upheld the city of Fife’s ban on marijuana businesses, saying the state law legalizing pot did not mandate cities to … full text bottom

    WHAT IS THE POT COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS FOR YOUR COUNTY OR CITY AND WA STATE? Cost is not necessarily about money. Cost by definition, can be, to cause somebody or something to lose, sacrifice, or suffer something.

    THE CITY OF FIFE  JUST SAID  “NO” TO WA STATE RECREATIONAL POT BUSINESSES.

    —————————————————————————–

    I sat through a Clallam County Planning Commission meeting Wed. Sept 17, 2014, that included a discussion on LOCAL POT ISSUES  AND TWO IRRELEVANT MAPS  of Clallam County.

    —————————————————————————————–

    Clallam County Planning Commissioners want to know. Legally defining THE 1000 FOOT LAW?

    GRC State Regulations Quick Analysis (full text below)

    GRC analysis on application requirements for types of marijuana licenses  Draft regulations require any Marijuana Producers, Marijuana Processors, or Marijuana Retailers, to be sited no less than 1000 feet of the perimeter of any elementary or secondary schools, playgrounds, recreation centers or facilities, child care centers, public parks, public transit centers, libraries, game arcades, or where admission is not restricted to persons twenty-one years of age or older.

    ————————————————————————————————-

    Legally defining THE 1000 FOOT LAW OF THE PERIMETER?

    1. ELEMENTARY OR SECONDARY SCHOOLS

     2. PLAYGROUNDS  

    3. RECREATION CENTERS OR FACILITIES

    4. CHILD CARE CENTERS

    5. PUBLIC PARKS

    6. PUBLIC TRANSIT CENTERS

    7. LIBRARIES

    8. GAME ARCADES  OR WHERE ADMISSION IS NOT RESTRICTED TO PERSONS TWENTY-ONE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER.

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

    If Clallam County votes to provide conditional use permits in residential areas of Clallam to Marijuana Producers, Marijuana Processors, or Marijuana Retailers?

    NO PROBLEM?

    ALL WE NEED NOW ARE LEGALLY RELEVANT CLALLAM COUNTY MAPS THAT SHALL DOCUMENT THE 1000 FOOT PERIMETER  REQUIREMENTS.

    REMEMBER THIS?

    GRC analysis on application requirements for types of marijuana licenses 

    Draft regulations require any Marijuana Producers, Marijuana Processors, or Marijuana Retailers, to be sited no less than 1000 feet of the perimeter of any elementary or secondary schools, playgrounds, recreation centers or facilities, child care centers, public parks, public transit centers, libraries, game arcades, or where admission is not restricted to persons twenty-one years of age or older.

    AND CONSIDER THIS

    How much MORE time and tax payer expense shall be spent by Clallam County to create  relevant maps, that have a sensible or logical connection with the location of  Marijuana Producers, Marijuana Processors, or Marijuana Retailer  as required by LAW and related to the  POT issues being drafted, discussed or investigated by our Clallam County elected officials, and our Planning  Commission.

    AND DON’T FORGET THIS

    There are four categories of the regulatory violation structure. These include public safety, regulatory-related, license-related, and one specifically for producers. Producers have the most emphasis in regards to violations, some that could force the producer to destroy up to 50% of harvestable plants for multiple violations.

    There are  eight  legal CATEGORIES to KEEP Marijuana Producers, Marijuana Processors, or Marijuana Retailers,  OUT OF YOUR BACK YARD. It only takes ONE to protect your PROPERTY RIGHTS

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

    Pot is LEGAL in WA State… The Voters approved it…. WA State is USER Friendly

    So? What is the War on Pot?  As usual, WA State has placed their CART OF POT $$$  before, the HORSE OF IMPLICATIONS

    Now that POT is legal? The implications of initiative 502 must be dealt with on a local, state, federal and international level.

    ———————————————————————————————

    The people in Clallam County are in a bit of an “Uproar” a heated or intense controversy, that has already been addressed once and denied by the  HEARING EXAMINER.

    Based on the findings of that Planning Commission meeting, the unusable maps and the Draft ordinance submitted by the Clallam County Commissioners. The unanimous Planning Commission decision, was to place a six month moratorium,  on conditional permitting  in residential areas.

    I agree completely with their decision. I commend them for their commitment to due diligence and taking their time to become more informed on Clallam County’s  controversial Pot issues.

    I am asking, that our elected officials and the Planning Commission to  take the following into consideration.

    ——————————————————————-

    The medicinal pot growing and using by individuals  has had a very small impact on our local communities.

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

    JUST BECAUSE RECREATIONAL POT GROWING BUSINESSES ARE LEGAL THEY ARE NOT MANDATORY IN CLALLAM COUNTY

    INDEED,  WA STATE HAS  CREATED THEIR GRAND SCHEME OF  “Get Rich Quick on Pot” Program for Recreation and Tourism?

    Has a POT economic impact statement been done by your city or county?

    FOLLOW THE MONEY…. Will your local community really get rich quick on pot?

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

    “NOT IN MY BACK YARD”

    JUDGE UPHOLDS CITY OF FIFE’S BAN ON POT BUSINESSES (full text bottom)

    Aug 29, 2014 – A Pierce County judge Friday upheld the city of Fife’s ban on marijuana businesses, saying the state law legalizing pot did not mandate cities to … full text below Fife and other municipalities are allowed to BAN marijuana businesses under initiative 502. The state law legalizing pot did not mandate cities to create or allow marijuana businesses.

    ————————————————————————

    RECREATIONAL POT GROWING BUSINESSES ARE NOT MANDATORY IN CLALLAM

    COUNTY CLALLAM COUNTY IS NOT MANDATED TO PROVIDE ANY ZONING,

    LOCATION?  NEAR A SCHOOL?

    LOCATION? NOT IN MY BACK YARD

    LOCATION? Will cause a loss of my property value LOCATION?

    LOCATION? conditional use POT

    GROWING permits IN RURAL AREAS FOR ANY SMALL, MEDIUM, MASSIVE, HUGE, ENORMOUS, VERY LARGE AREAS FOR RECREATIONAL POT GROWING OPERATIONS AND LOCATIONS FOR  SALES AND SMOKING.

    NOR, does it MANDATE THAT OUR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSION HAVE  TO MANDATE THEIR VALUABLE TIME WITH

    MANDATED PUBLIC POT MEETINGS

    MANDATING PUBLIC COMMENTS

    ON POT FACT FINDING ON  implications OF POT  GROWERS, THAT MAY  NEGATIVELY AFFECT OUR COUNTY FINANCIALLY AND LEGALLY. ANY POT ORDINANCE PASSING, BY OUR COUNTY TO

    PROVIDE POT GROWING ZONING and POT GROWING conditional use permits

    THE COST OF AND FEES FOR COUNTY POT  INSPECTORS  FOR POT GROWING FACILITIES AND

    IN FACT MORE POT WASTED TIME OUTS FOR HEARING EXAMINERS, HEARINGS. MORE IMPACT? ON OUR CITIZENS IN OUR LOCAL COMMUNITIES?

    —————————————————————————

    Apr 10, 2014 – It remains to be seen whether Washington state can ensure that its licensed marijuana businesses won’t become a haven for criminals or a …

    THE FEAR FACTOR? HEALTH IMPACT? POT SMOKING IS SMOKING, THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, ATTRACTING THE CRIMINAL ELEMENT, PROTECTION BY LAW ENFORCEMENT, WA STATE GIVES OUT THE PERMITS TO INDIVIDUALS? WHO DOES THE CRIMINAL BACK GROUND CHECKS FOR THOSE WHO WILL BE DOING THEIR POT BUSINESS IN YOUR COMMUNITY?  DOES YOUR COUNTY-CITY  NEED TO DO IT’S OWN CRIMINAL BACK GROUND CHECK?

    Apr 11, 2014 – Washington state officials started asking last April for permission to run the checks. … it wants the states to make sure pot revenue doesn’t go to organized crimebackground checks don’t give the businesses or the states that …

    ————————————————————————————————–

    WA State Application Requirements

    Each marijuana license application is unique and investigated individually. The board may inquire and request documents regarding all matters in connection with the marijuana license application. (3) The board will conduct an investigation of the applicants’ criminal history and administrative violation history, per WAC 314-55-040 and 314-55-045.

    ——————————————————————————

    FOLLOWED BY  THE QUICK ANALYSIS GRC STATE REGULATIONS

    Washington State is one of two states that have legalized cannabis for recreational use through Initiative 502. Therefore, a newly developed regulatory system is being created to govern this new type of market and legal marijuana in Washington. There are categories developed within the recent draft regulations which identify how each license is issued, taxed, and directly integrated in the supply chain process:

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

    WA STATE Application Requirements

    Each marijuana license application is unique and investigated individually. The board may inquire and request documents regarding all matters in connection with the marijuana license application.

    The application requirements for a marijuana license include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: (1) Per RCW 69.50.331, the board shall send a notice to cities and counties, and may send a notice to tribal governments or port authorities regarding the marijuana license application.

    The local authority has twenty days to respond with a recommendation to approve or an objection to the applicant, location, or both.

    (2) The board will verify that the proposed business meets the minimum requirements for the type of marijuana license requested.

    (3) The board will conduct an investigation of the applicants’ criminal history and administrative violation history, per WAC 314-55-040 and 314-55-045. (a) The criminal history background check will consist of completion of a personal/criminal history form provided by the board and submission of fingerprints to a vendor approved by the board.

    The applicant will be responsible for paying all fees required by the vendor for fingerprinting. These fingerprints will be submitted to the Washington State Patrol and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for comparison to their criminal records.

    The applicant will be responsible for paying all fees required by the Washington State Patrol and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (b) Financiers will also be subject to criminal history investigations equivalent to that of the license applicant. Financiers will also be responsible for paying all fees required for the criminal history check.

    (4) The board will conduct a financial investigation in order to verify the source of funds used for the acquisition and startup of the business, the applicants’ right to the real and personal property, and to verify the true party(ies) of interest.

    (5) The board may require a demonstration by the applicant that they are familiar with marijuana laws and rules…

    ———————————————————————–

    GRC State Regulations Quick Analysis

    Washington State is one of two states that have legalized cannabis for recreational use through Initiative 502. Therefore, a newly developed regulatory system is being created to govern this new type of market and legal marijuana in Washington. There are categories developed within the recent draft regulations which identify how each license is issued, taxed, and directly integrated in the supply chain process: There are three types of marijuana licenses: ·         Marijuana Producer License – Cultivation license used to grow marijuana and sell to a licensed Marijuana Processor Marijuana Retailer.

    • Marijuana Processor License –  A license to create MIP (marijuana-infused products) and sell to a licensed marijuana retailer.
    • Marijuana Retail License – A retail license to sell only useable marijuana, marijuana-infused products, and marijuana paraphernalia in retail outlets to persons twenty-one years of age and older.

    *No business may hold all three licenses. A licensee may hold both a producer and a processer license. However, a producer or processor may not also be a retailer. The number of retail licenses will be limited.

    Additional category: ·

    Financier – This level of involvement indicates any person or entity who has made or will make an investment in the licensed business of more than ten thousand dollars. A “financier” can be someone who provides money as a gift, someone who loans money to the business and expects to be paid back the amount of the loan without interest, or someone who invests money into the business expecting a percentage of the profits, but accepts the risk that there may not be a full return on the investment. The business applying for a marijuana license can be partnerships, employee cooperatives, associations, nonprofit corporations, corporations, and limited liability companies and must be formed in Washington.

    Producer License Fees Processor License Fees Retailer License Fees

    Below is a link to frequently asked questions about the I-502 rules in reference to licensing, testing, growing, processing, and the operating of a retail location.

    FAQs on I-502 Rules Lottery Details Summary Washington State’s Liquor Control Board has completed the initial phase of its lottery for the state’s 334 legal retail marijuana licenses. The board posted the results of the lottery on its website which ranks all 1,175 applicants within their corresponding jurisdictions. The rankings outline which applicants will move to the final stage of the licensing process, where the liquor board will examine their business models and run background checks. If a business fails to meet specific standards it will removed from the rankings and the next business will be bumped into contention. Out of 122 jurisdictions in the state of Washington, 75 required a lottery because the state received more applications than the number of available licenses. The rankings were generated through a Seattle based company that works with the Washington State Lottery. Applicants who did not win a license have the opportunity to appeal the process. *View more details about the lottery on the Washington State Liquor Control Board’s website:

    Lottery FAQ’s 

    GRC analysis on application requirements for types of marijuana licenses  ·         Comprehensive merit-based application process will require information about the company applying, defined site locations, proof of capitalization, and other specifically detailed Marijuana Producing, Marijuana Processing, and Marijuana Retail business and operations plans.

    • A Marijuana Retailer is prohibited from obtaining cannabis or MIP’s from outside the State of Washington and can only obtain it  from a registered Marijuana Producer or Marijuana Processer.

             Draft regulations require any Marijuana Producers, Marijuana Processors, or Marijuana Retailers, to be sited no less than 1000 feet of the perimeter of any elementary or secondary schools, playgrounds, recreation centers or facilities, child care centers, public parks, public transit centers, libraries, game arcades, or where admission is not restricted to persons twenty-one years of age or older.

    • All applicants and employees working in each licensed establishments must be at least twenty-one years of age.
    • Marijuana licensees may not allow the consumption of marijuana or marijuana-infused products on the licensed premises.
    • Regulations require all licensed establishments to maintain a complete seed-to-sale inventory control system, to monitor the chain of custody and current whereabouts,in real time, of medical marijuana from the point that it is harvested from a Marijuana Producer or Processer, and sold to a Marijuana Retailer.
    • Laboratory testing is required on testing for traces of pesticides/mildew and determining THC/CBD content, overall quality, and potency. A comprehensive QA/QC process will be implemented.
    • Marijuana must be cultivated in an enclosed, locked facility.
    • (MIP) Marijuana-Infused Products are allowed to be created by a licensed Marijuana Processor to be sold to a Marijuana Retailer
    • Adults 21 and over are allowed a single transaction per visit which is limited to one ounce of useable marijuana, sixteen ounces of marijuana-infused product in solid form, and seventy-two ounces of marijuana-infused product in liquid form.
    • For those individuals and groups interested in applying for more than the number permitted licensed locations, a random drawing will be conducted to determine those entities eligible to apply for a license.
    • A marijuana retailer licensee may sell useable marijuana, marijuana-infused products, and marijuana paraphernalia between the hours of 6am and 2am.
    • A marijuana extract does not meet the definition of a marijuana-infused product therefore cannot be sold at a Marijuana Retailer store in the form of hash, oil, or concentrated wax. In addition there is special instruction and training on using closed-loop extraction systems.
    • There are four categories of the regulatory violation structure. These include public safety, regulatory-related, license-related, and one specifically for producers. Producers have the most emphasis in regards to violations, some that could force the producer to destroy up to 50% of harvestable plants for multiple violations.
    • A special “Board” will oversee the licensing process and its implementation in cooperation with the Washington Department of Revenue and State Police. The Washington Department of Agriculture standards will be used to govern all Marijuana Producers gardening methods.

    State financial requirements to open a dispensary in Washington

    • Marijuana Producer License Application Fee………………………………………..$250.00
    • Marijuana Processor License Application Fee……………………………………….$250.00
    • Marijuana Retailer License Application Fee…………………………………………..$250.00
    • Marijuana License Excise Tax – 25% of selling price of all products sold
    • Each license has an annual fee for issuance and renewal for $1000.00*

    ​GRC recommends that between $75,000.00 – $350,000.00 in starting capital could be necessary to pay the expenses involved with development of your dispensary business plans, securing site locations, any consulting fees accrued, and paying all state financial requirements to receive a Marijuana Producer, Marijuana Processor, or Marijuana Retailer license. There will be additional costs when applying for more than one of any type of these licenses if selected during the addtional random drawing process.   This may or may not include the amount needed to develop either the marijuana cultivation and production site, MIP processing plant, or Marijuana Retail locations. For Marijuana Producers only, it is imperative to have the necessary operations costs covered for up to 2-4 months during initial cultivation cycle after receiving a license to operate. Please contact us for more information on how to open a dispensary in Washington.

    ———————————————————————————

    complete text

    Judge upholds city of Fife’s ban on pot businesses

    Posted by Evan Bush Seattle Times August 29, 2014 at 3:05 PM A Pierce County judge Friday upheld the city of Fife’s ban on marijuana businesses, saying the state law legalizing pot did not mandate cities to allow them.

    Prospective marijuana retailer MMH was suing the city and hoped the judge would compel Fife to issue it a business license.

    Tedd  Wetherbee, who owns MMH, said he plans to appeal the judge’s ruling.

    State Attorney General Bob Ferguson said he expects the case will wind up in the hands of the state Supreme Court, possibly early next year. “It’s precisely the issue the state Supreme Court is likely to provide guidance on to the state,” said Ferguson.

    There were two key issues in the case: whether Fife and other municipalities are allowed to ban marijuana businesses under Initiative 502, and whether federal marijuana laws on pot trump the state’s.

    MMH’s lawyer, Mark Nelson, argued that Initiative 502 set up a tightly regulated system controlled by the state Liquor Control Board. Because the board allotted stores across the state and licensed them, Nelson said, his client had the right to open up a shop and Fife shouldn’t be able to stop him. He also argued that disallowing MMH to operate violated voters’ will. Fifty-three percent of Fife voters approved I-502 in November 2012, he said. “I-502 represents the will of people of Washington state,” said Nelson during the hearing in Pierce County Superior Court. “It represents the will of Pierce County and will of the city of Fife.”

    Judge Ronald Culpepper disagreed in what he represented as a “quick and dirty” ruling from the bench. “It could be consistent for people to generally think of legalization of marijuana as a good thing, but not in their backyard,” Culpepper said.

    “I don’t think that’s an irreconcilable conflict.” Because Culpepper decided Fife was allowed to ban pot businesses within the bounds of I-502, he didn’t have to reach the second issue Fife raised — federal preemption. He did take a moment to comment on the issue though. “There is not federal preemption here,” he said. The judge said the state has the authority to legislate marijuana policy and that Washington’s approach wasn’t at odds with the Controlled Substances Act. If the federal government wanted to crack down on marijuana, he said, it still could.

    During the hearing, Culpepper also balked at Fife’s argument that city officials could be prosecuted by federal authorities for approving pot businesses, saying it seemed “far-fetched.” The state Attorney General’s Office, which intervened in the case and believed the bans were legal, disagreed with Fife on the issue of federal preemption and said it could “eviscerate” the law legalizing marijuana.

    After the hearing, Ferguson said the judge’s ruling put the initiative on stronger legal ground because federal preemption was a nonstarter for the judge. “We’ll go anywhere, any time to defend I-502” from federal preemption, said Noah Purcell, the state Solicitor General, who argued the office’s position. It’s not clear yet if the ruling will have widespread effects.

    The Legislature meets in January and could address pot bans. A higher court could overturn the judge’s decision. Alison Holcomb, the ACLU lawyer who crafted the initiative, said she believed the judge’s ruling was “specific to the case.” “I don’t think Judge Culpepper’s decisions necessarily applies to other jurisdictions or Pierce County where legislation is pending right now,” she said. I-502 requires Washington residents have “adequate access“ to pot products “to discourage purchases from the illegal market.”

    Representing the ACLU, attorney Salvador Mungia argued that if municipalities adopted widespread bans, it would undercut the system and prevent the state from its goal of eradicating the black market. The judge seemed sympathetic to the argument, and suggested a ban in Pierce County might not be analogous to one in tiny Fife, a town of about 9,000 people where residents can access nearby pot shops. Holcomb said she hopes the state Legislature can address bans this session. “My hope is that we’ll have a political solution in 2015,” she said. Holcomb said the Legislature should consider incentivizing municipalities to participate in the I-502 system by changing the law’s tax structure.


  • SMP PROTECTING YOUR HOME?

    SMP PROTECTING YOUR HOME?

    SEPT. 15, 2014   This is  YET ANOTHER  FOLLOW UP

    SMP PUBLIC COMMENT TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH RCW 90.58.10

    PROTECTION OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
    Clallam County Update SMP Comment
    Draft 3.18 Shoreline Stabilization
    Regulation as applied to RCW 90.58.100

    This is my 153rd  Public Comment on the Clallam County SMP Update

    Fighting “ECOLOGY”  for private property rights since Jan. 26, 2011

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    —————————————————————————-

    SMP PROTECTING YOUR HOME?

    APRIL 10, 2013 A FOLLOW UP COMMENT TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH RCW 90.58.10

    Posted on APRIL 10, 2013 12:49pm  by Pearl Rains Hewett comment

    Protection of single family residence
    Clallam County Update SMP Comment
    Draft 3.18 Shoreline Stabilization
    Regulation as applied to RCW 90.58.100

    The devil is in the details, first, I fought ESA Margaret Clancy for months, to have the words “EMINENT DANGER” removed from SMP 3.18, because it was in conflict with state law. (which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage)

    Since then, I have been fighting for months with ESA Margaret Clancy to have the words “PRIMARY STRUCTURE” removed, because it did not include “APPURTENANCE” and have asked repeatedly to have it replaced with, the legal wording and definition

    ——————————————————————————

    Pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW. “Single-family residence” means a detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one family including those structures and developments within a contiguous ownership which are a normal appurtenance.
    THIS IS THE WA STATE LAW RCW 90.58.100 protection of
    single family residences and appurtenant structures
    (6) Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall govern the issuance of substantial development permits for shoreline protection, including structural methods such as construction of bulkheads, and nonstructural methods of protection. The standards
    shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall provide a preference for permit issuance for measures to protect single family residences occupied prior to January 1, 1992, where the proposed measure is designed to minimize harm to the shoreline natural environment.

    THIS IS THE RCW 90.58 DEFINITION OF “Single-family residence”

    Pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW. “Single-family residence” means a detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one family including those structures and developments within a contiguous ownership which are a normal appurtenance.

    An “appurtenance” is necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single-family residence and is located landward of the ordinary high water mark and the perimeter of a wetland. On a statewide basis, normal appurtenances include a garage; deck; driveway; utilities; fences; installation of a septic tank and drainfield and grading which does not exceed two hundred fifty cubic yards and which does not involve placement of fill in any wetland or waterward of the ordinary high water mark.

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

    If in fact 3.18.10 Regulation The ESA ADOLFSON AND CLALLAM COUNTY’S INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW RCW 90.58.100 IS LEGALLY FLAWED BY WORDING, DEFINITION AND THE INTENT OF RCW 90.58.100

    1. The words primary structure ARE NOT included in RCW 90.58.100.

    2. There is no definition of primary structure in the SMP Update

    3. RCW 90.58.100 specifically states the wording single family residences

    4. The intent of RCW 90.58.100 is PROTECTION

    5. HAS THE LEGAL INTENT OF RCW 90.58.100 BEEN MET OR COMPROMISED IN CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATED 3.18.10 Regulations – Application Requirements

    ———————————————————————–

    Shall Clallam County INTERPRETATION of “STANDARDS”
    UNDER 3.18.10 Regulation as applied to RCW 90.58.100 force private property owners to fight for over 10 years and create a financial hardship

    JUST to get the RCW 90.58.100 protection of their single family residence?

    ———————————————————————————————————
    An earlier SMP Comment
    Will Clallam County Elected Administrators place it’s private property owners in the same position as Vicki Luhrs?
    “For a decade, as the county has callously looked on, Victoria Luhrs’ property has been eroding at an alarming rate,” said PLF’s Hodges. “In some areas, up to 25
    feet of land has eroded, nearly a third of the land between her house and the bluff. After years of litigating against the county’s obstruction, Ms. Luhrs will finally be
    allowed to lay out the facts, in court, that support her urgent need for a rock revetment.”

    I met and spoke with Vicki Luhrs at the Pacific Legal Foundation meeting in June 2012.
    “In some areas, up to 25 feet of land has eroded, nearly a third of the land between her house and the bluff.
    ———————————————————————–

    Shall Clallam County INTERPRETATION of “STANDARDS”
    UNDER 3.18.10 Regulation as applied to RCW 90.58.100 force private property owners to fight for over 10 years and create a financial hardship

    JUST to get the RCW 90.58.100 protection of their single family residence?

     

    ———————————————————————–

    (full text)

    SMP PROTECTING YOUR HOME?

    Posted on April 10, 2013 12:49pm by Pearl Rains Hewett comment

    Protection of single family residence
    Clallam County Update SMP Comment
    Draft 3.18 Shoreline Stabilization
    Regulation as applied to RCW 90.58.100

    A FOLLOW UP COMMENT TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH RCW 90.58.10

    The devil is in the details, first, I fought ESA Margaret Clancy for months, to have the words “eminent danger” removed from SMP 3.18, because it was in conflict with state law. (which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage)

    Since then, I have been fighting for months with ESA Margaret Clancy to have the words primary structure removed, because it did not include appurtenance and have asked repeatedly to have it replaced with, the legal wording and definition

    Pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW. “Single-family residence” means a detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one family including those structures and developments within a contiguous ownership which are a normal appurtenance.
    ———————————————————————————————–

    April 10, 2013 on line SMP Draft

    ———————————————————————–
    3.18
    Shoreline Stabilization

    3.18.10
    Regulations – Application Requirements
    1.
    Geotechnical reports pursuant to this section that address the need to prevent potential damage to a primary structure shall address the necessity for shoreline stabilization by estimating time frames and rates of erosion and report on the urgency associated with the specific situation. As a general matter, hard armoring solutions shall not be authorized except when a report confirms that there is a significant possibility that such a structure will be damaged within three years as a result of shoreline erosion in the absence of such hard armoring measures, or where waiting until the need is that immediate, would foreclose the opportunity to use measures that avoid impacts on ecological functions. Thus, where the geotechnical report confirms a need to prevent potential damage to a primary structure, but the need is not as immediate as the three years, the report may still be used to justify more immediate authorization to protect against erosion using soft measures.

    2.
    To verify that the provisions of this section are fully addressed, the Administrator may require information to support a permit application for any type of shoreline stabilization. The Administrator shall consult with the appropriate state and federal natural resources agencies to determine the type and level of information that should be provided. Application information required pursuant to this section shall address the urgency and risks associated with the specific site characteristics and shall include:

    ———————————————————————–
    My comment
    I would like to see the SHALLS replaced with wording that would allow more discretion by Clallam County Planning Dept.
    ———————————————————————–

    a. A scaled site plan showing:
    (1) existing site topography,
    and

    (2) the location of existing
    and proposed shoreline stabilization structures, and any fill including dimensions indicating distances to the ordinary high water mark; and

    b.
    A description of the processes affecting the site and surrounding areas, including but not limited to tidal action and/or waves; slope instability or mass wasting; littoral drift; channel migration; and soil erosion, deposition, or accretion; and

    c.
    A description of alternatives to structural approaches, and a thorough discussion of the environmental impacts of each alternative; and

    d.
    A description of any proposed vegetation removal and a plan to revegetate the site following construction; and
    e.
    A hydraulic analysis prepared by a qualified hydrologist, professional engineer, geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist that describes anticipated effects of the project on water and wave elevations and velocities; and

    f. A biological resource inventory and analysis prepared by a qualified professional biologist that describes the anticipated effects of the project on fish and wildlife resources; and

    g.
    A description of opportunities for providing public access to and along the affected shoreline, as well as any proposed on. site recreational features, if applicable; and

    h.
    A description of any waste and debris disposal sites for materials generated during construction; and

    i. Any other information that may be required by the Administrator to demonstrate compliance with the review criteria referenced in this section.
    ———————————————————————–

    An earlier SMP Comment
    Will Clallam County Elected Administrators place it’s private property owners in the same position as Vicki Luhrs?
    “For a decade, as the county has callously looked on, Victoria Luhrs’ property has been eroding at an alarming rate,” said PLF’s Hodges. “In some areas, up to 25
    feet of land has eroded, nearly a third of the land between her house and the bluff. After years of litigating against the county’s obstruction, Ms. Luhrs will finally be
    allowed to lay out the facts, in court, that support her urgent need for a rock revetment.”

    I met and spoke with Vicki Luhrs at the Pacific Legal Foundation meeting in June 2012.
    “In some areas, up to 25 feet of land has eroded, nearly a third of the land between her house and the bluff.
    ———————————————————————–

    Shall Clallam County INTERPRETATION of “STANDARDS”
    UNDER 3.18.10 Regulation as applied to RCW 90.58.100 force private property owners to fight for over 10 years and create a financial hardship

    JUST to get the RCW 90.58.100 protection of their single family residence?

    If in fact 3.18.10 Regulation The ESA ADOLFSON AND CLALLAM COUNTY’S INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW RCW 90.58.100 IS LEGALLY FLAWED BY WORDING, DEFINITION AND THE INTENT OF RCW 90.58.100

    1. The words primary structure ARE NOT included in RCW 90.58.100.

    2. There is no definition of primary structure in the SMP Update

    3. RCW 90.58.100 specifically states the wording single family residences

    4. The intent of RCW 90.58.100 is PROTECTION

    5. HAS THE LEGAL INTENT OF RCW 90.58.100 BEEN MET OR COMPROMISED IN CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATED 3.18.10 Regulations – Application Requirements

    ———————————————————————–

    My last SMP Comment
    To assist ESA in the legal clarification, definition and correction of WA State RCW 90.58.100, I am providing the following documentation for the SMP Update.

    ———————————————————————–

    THIS IS THE RCW 90.58 DEFINITION OF “Single-family residence”

    Pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW. “Single-family residence” means a detached dwelling designed for and occupied by one family including those structures and developments within a contiguous ownership which are a normal appurtenance.

    An “appurtenance” is necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single-family residence and is located landward of the ordinary high water mark and the perimeter of a wetland. On a statewide basis, normal appurtenances include a garage; deck; driveway; utilities; fences; installation of a septic tank and drainfield and grading which does not exceed two hundred fifty cubic yards and which does not involve placement of fill in any wetland or waterward of the ordinary high water mark.
    ———————————————————————–

    THIS IS THE WA STATE LAW RCW 90.58.100 protection of
    single family residences and appurtenant structures
    (6) Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall govern the issuance of substantial development permits for shoreline protection, including structural methods such as construction of bulkheads, and nonstructural methods of protection. The standards
    shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall provide a preference for permit issuance for measures to protect single family residences occupied prior to January 1, 1992, where the proposed measure is designed to minimize harm to the shoreline natural environment.

    This entry was posted in “Reasonable Man” understanding, Clallam County SMP, Private Property Rights, Public Access to Public land, The Written Law. Bookmark the permalink.